UNIT 1

BASIC CONCEPTS OF TRANSLATION

Translation Studies: first proposed by James S. Holmes (1972) as a better alternative to translatology and to translation science, or the science of translating (cf. Nida 19 !)

T r a n s la tio nS tu d ie s

'P u r e ' T h e o r e tic a l G e n e r a l P a r tia l D e s c r ip tiv e P r o d u c t O r ie n te d P r o c e s s O r ie n te d F u n c tio n O r ie n te d

A p p lie d

T r a n s la to r T r a in in g

T r a n s la tio n A id s

T r a n s la tio n C r itic is m

M e d iu m R e s tr ic te d

A r e a R e s tr ic te d

R a n k R e s tr ic te d

T e x tT y p e R e s tr ic te d

T im e R e s tr ic te d

P r o b le m R e s tr ic te d

(Holmes" map of thanslation st#dies 1972) 1.1. The concept of translation $ranslation % the translatin& process and its prod#ct, i.e. s#bs#min& both the activity and the entity $ranslation % the prod#ct of the translatin& process (the translated ' tar&et te(t % $$ $ranslatin& % the process, the activity performed by the translator )rocess * res#lt + ,$he process or res#lt of convertin& information from one lan&#a&e or lan&#a&e variety into another. $he aim is to reprod#ce as acc#rately as possible all the &rammatical and le(ical feat#res of the so#rce lan&#a&e (S-) ori&inal by findin& e.#ivalents in the tar&et lan&#a&e ($-). /t the same time, all fact#al information contained in the ori&inal te(t m#st be retained in the translation, (0eetham and H#dson 19 9+2!2).

 The interpretive theory of translation (a theory of translatin& and translation) lays e.#al stress on the interpretive process of any stretch of lan&#a&e, involvin& lin&#istics, psycholin&#istics, semantics, pra&matics, the c#lt#ral conte(t, comm#nicative competence 1ithin a translation%oriented te(t analysis ($2$/) (3roitor# 199 + !). 4t is an interdisciplinary, m#ltilevel approach to the e(planation of the phenomena of translation, interpretation for translation (i.e. translation%oriented interpretation) and interpretation as oral translation. $he interpretative theory of translation implies+ observin& conventions of form (lin&#istic str#ct#re)5 interpretin& and translatin& style and re&ister5 preservin& the te(t#al or&anicity, perceivin& the te(t as a lar&er #nit of disco#rse5 layin& stress on coherence and cohesion in te(t#al clarity5 performin& the interpretive analysis closely lin6ed 1ith or precedin& the translation oriented te(t analysis5 interpretation of meanin& at the 1ord and above the 1ord level5 6no1led&e of the c#lt#ral conte(t5 6no1led&e of the c#lt#re%specific elements5 all the components of the translational competence.

$ranslation means+ 1. The process of transferring a ritten te!t fro" the SL to the TL# cond#cted by a translator# in a specific socio$c%lt%ral conte!t. &. The ritten pro'%ct# or TT# 1hich res%lts from that process and 1hich f%nctions in the socio$c%lt%ral conte!t of the TL. (. The cogniti)e# ling%istic# )is%al# c%lt%ral an' i'eological pheno"ena 1hich are an inte&ral part of 1 and 2 above. (Hatim and 0#nday 277!+ )

*. Interpretation of "eaning at the 1ord and above the 1ord level# re+%iring inter'isciplinar, -no le'ge an' a "%ltile)el approach. (3roitor# 199 +!)

1. &. The ling%istic an' co""%nicati)e stages of the translation theor,.

The linguistic stage (up to 1950): covers mainly literary texts (poetry, short stories, plays, novels and autobiographies ! is concerned "ith the "ord-for-"ord translation# The communicative stage ( from around 1950): covers literary and non-literary texts! is concerned "ith the categori$ation of text registers, the participation of a range of readership groups (from less-educated to experts , the identification of types of procedures for translating various segments of texts#

1.&.1. The ling%istic stage Essay on the Principle of Translation (1797) by /.8.$ytler : - a ,&ood translation, + the translation 9in 1hich the merit of the ori&inal is so completely transf#sed into another lan&#a&e, as to be as distinctly apprehended, and as stron&ly felt by a native of the co#ntry to 1hich that lan&#a&e belon&s, as it is by those 1ho spea6 the lan&#a&e of the ori&inal 1or6: Tytler' s rules + normative prescriptions derivin& from the s#b;ective and eval#ative description of a ,&ood translation9 + % the translation sho#ld &ive a complete transcript of the ideas of the ori&inal 1or65 % the style and manner of 1ritin& sho#ld be of the same character 1ith that of the ori&inal5 % the translation sho#ld have all the ease of the ori&inal composition. $he policy is ,the te(t, the 1hole te(t, and nothin& b#t the te(t9. $ranslation is seen as an interpretation 1hich necessarily reconstit#tes and transforms the forei&n te(t. $ranslation means recreatin& the val#es accr#in& to the forei&n te(t over time and his #topian vision of lin&#istic <harmony" (=en;amin 192>). >

 $ranslation, ironically, transplants the ori&inal into a more definitive lin&#istic realm since it can no lon&er be displaced by a secondary renderin&. (=en;amin 192>). $ranslation is seen as criticism, insofar as it attempts theoretically to anticipate creation, it chooses, it eliminates repetitions, it or&ani?es 6no1led&e in s#ch a 1ay that the ne(t &eneration may find only the still livin& part. 8or e(ample, @. )o#nd"s #se of translation is described as <a tool in the c#lt#ral str#&&le" (Aent?ler 2771+ 2B). 0oreover, )o#nd"s 1ell%6no1n <0a6e it ne1" is th#s recast by de 3ampos as the revitali?ation of the past via translation. (Cieira 1999+ 17D). $ranslation is not a d#plicate of the ori&inal te(t5 it is not the 1or6 itself 1ith a different vocab#lary. 4t is a literary &enre apart, different from the rest, 1ith its o1n norms and ends. 4t is not the 1or6, b#t a path to1ards the 1or6. (2rte&a E. Aasset 19>7). $ranslation is a distinctive lin&#istic practice, as a <literary &enre apart", this ma6in& the ca#se of the <enormo#s diffic#lty of translation"5 <all peoples silence some thin&s in order to be able to say others" (2rte&a E. Aasset 19>7). 9$o 1rite 1ell is to ma6e contin#al inc#rsions into &rammar, into established #sa&e, and into accepted lin&#istic norms. 4t is an act of permanent rebellion a&ainst the social environs, a s#bversion. $o 1rite 1ell is to employ a certain radical co#ra&e. 8ine, b#t the translator is #s#ally a shy character. FGH He finds himself facin& an enormo#s controllin& apparat#s, composed of &rammar and common #sa&e. Ihat 1ill he do 1ith the rebellio#s te(tJ 4sn"t it too m#ch to as6 that he also be rebellio#s, partic#larly since the te(t is someone else"sJ He 1ill be r#led by co1ardice FGH he 1ill betray him. $rad#ttore, traditore.: (2rte&a y Aasset 1992+ 9!) 1.&.&. The co""%nicati)e stage. K#rin& this sta&e most translation theory became fact#al or non%literary. $his sta&e is dominated by the f#ndamental iss#e of translatability. $he forei&n te(t is re1ritten accordin& to the terms and val#es of the receivin& c#lt#re (Iillard Can 2rman L#ine). National literat#res as sites of international infl#ence and affiliation 1hich nonetheless develop in nationally distinct 1ays, prod#cin& #ni.#e 9masterpieces: that demand from the translator an 9ideal version,: #ltimately #nattainable (Cladimir Nabo6ov 19!1+1 1). 9@.#ivalence of messa&es #ltimately relies #pon an identity of sit#ations:, 1here 9sit#ations: indicates an #ndefined 9reality.: $he translator needs to thin6 of meanin& as a c#lt#ral constr#ction and to see a close connection bet1een lin&#istic proced#res and 9metalin&#istic information,: namely 9the c#rrent state of literat#re, science, politics etc. of both lan&#a&e comm#nities:. (Jean%)a#l Cinay and Jean Karbelnet )

1.(.

So"e essential )ie s on translation.

1.//s $ 1.(/s0 I. =en;amin, @. )o#nd, Jor&e -#is =or&es, 2rte&a y Aasset 1.*/s $ 1.1/s0 Cladimir Nabo6ov, Jean%)a#l Cinay and Jean Karbelnet, Iillard van 2rman L#ine, M. Ja6obson (19D9) 1.2/s $ 1.3/s0 @. Nida, J.3. 3atford (19 D), JiNi -evy (19 >, 19 7, 1971, 197 ), O. Meiss, James Holmes, A. Steiner, 4tamar @ven%Pohar, Aideon $o#ry, Hans Cermeer, /ndre -efevere, Iilliam 8ra1ley, )hilip -e1is, /ntoine =erman, -ory 3hamberlain 1.3/s 4 1.5/s0 S#san =assnett (19B7, 19BD), 0ary Snell%Hornby, Mo&er =ell (19BB), /ntoine =erman (19B!), Soshana =l#m%O#l6a (19B1, 19B ), Michard =rislin (197 ), John Kodds (19BD), /lan K#ff (19B9), 4tamar @ven%Pohar (1971, 197B,1997), James Holmes (1977, 1972, 197B), J. M. -admiral (1979), Jose -ambert (19B2, 19B!, 19BD 19B , 19BB,19B9), /. -efevere (19B1, 19B>, 19B7, 19B9), /ndrei =antaQ (197B, 19B2, 19BD, 19B7, 19B9), St. /#&. Koinas (1972, 19BB), -eon -eviRchi (197D, 1991) 1../s0 0ona =a6er (1992, 199>, 199D, 199 ), /. =antas (1991,199>, 199!), S. =assnett (1997, 199>) Jean =oase%=eier (199!, 199D), Mo&er =ell (1991, 199D), @doardo 3risaf#lli (199 ), 0ichael 3ronin, Kir6 Kelabastita (1997, 199>), 3ay Koller#p (199 ), Smberto @co (199o, 199>),@d1in Aent?ler (199>), Kaniel Aile (19B9, 199!, 199D), @rnst%/#&#st A#tt (1997, 1991), =asil Hatim and Jan 0ason (1992), $heo Hermans (1991,199>,199D,199 ), Oeith Harvey (199D), -ance He1son and Jac6y 0artin (1991), James Holmes (19BB), J#liane Ho#se (19BB, 199>, 199 ,1997), Oin&a Ola#dy (199>, 199!), Ierner Ooller (1997, 199>, 199D), Jose -ambert (1991, 199>, 199D),T 0. -ederer, /. -efevere (1991, 199>, 199!), K. Selescovich, -a1rence Cen#ti &///s $ &/1/s0 0ona =a6er (2771, 2717), 0ichael 3ronin, 3ay Koller#p (277 ) Kavid Oatan, Sara -aviosa, 8ederica Scarpa, -a1rence Cen#ti

1.(.1. Translation theories 6ase' on the concept of lang%age as co""%nication. 1.>.1.1. $1entieth cent#ry translation theories reveal a 1ide ran&e of fields and approaches. /n acco#nt of theoretical concepts and trends is as interestin& as #sef#l. Nonetheless, 1hatever the approach may be, a <complete" theory of translation 9has three components+ specification of f#nction and &oal, description and analysis of operations, and critical comment on relationships bet1een &oal and operations: (Oelly 1979+ 1). 4t has become obvio#s that theorists have most often foc#sed on one component at the e(pense of others. $he relevance of theoretical concepts &enerally depends on lin&#istic, c#lt#ral and social factors. / translation theory 9presumes a systematic theory of language "ith "hich it overlaps completely or from 1hich it derives as a special case accordin& to demonstrable r#les of ded#ction and application: (Steiner 197D+ 2B71, emphasis added). Ho1ever, one may at any time as6 the .#estion of 1hether s#ch a theory of lan&#a&e e(ists. @ven Steiner himself do#bted it. $he main idea is that a translation theory al1ays 9rests on partic#lar ass#mptions abo#t lan&#a&e #se, even if they are no more than fra&mentary hypotheses that remain implicit or #nac6no1led&ed. 8or cent#ries the ass#mptions seem to have fallen into t1o lar&e cate&ories+ instr#mental and hermene#tic: (Oelly 1979, in Cen#ti 2777+ D). Some translation theories are based on the concept of lan&#a&e as comm#nication, considerin& the semantic and pra&matic dimensions of the conte(t. 2ther theories are based on the hermene#tic concept of lan&#a&e as interpretation and e(plain the renderin& of the so#rce%te(t (S$) in the tar&et%lan&#a&e ($-) in terms of the social f#nctions and effects. $he be&innin& of the t1entieth cent#ry is mar6ed by translation theories ran&in& from I. =en;amin"s (192>) vie1 on translation as recreatin& the val#es accr#in& to the forei&n te(t over time and his #topian vision of lin&#istic <harmony" to J. -. =or&es"(19>D) belief in the translator"s <happy and creative" infidelity, or to 2rte&a. y. Aasset"s (19>7) vie1 of translation as a distinctive lin&#istic practice, as a <literary &enre apart". =ein& a1are of the comple(ities of translation, Aasset tries to identify the ca#se of the 9enormo#s diffic#lty of translation: in that 9all peoples silence some thin&s in order

to be able to say others:, and translation renders in the tar&et lan&#a&e 1hat the so#rce lan&#a&e 9tends to silence:(Cen#ti 2777+D!, )opa 277B+ >D). No1 the <misery" of translation lies in its impossibility, beca#se of the lin&#istic and c#lt#ral differences bet1een lan&#a&es, 1hereas its splendo#r lies in the translator"s ability to manip#late these differences and force the reader to &o into the tradition and #niverse of the forei&n lan&#a&e te(t. =y restorin& the presti&e of s#ch a diffic#lt 1or6, translation becomes 9a discipline sui generis 1hich, c#ltivated 1ith contin#ity, 1o#ld devise its o1n techni.#es that 1o#ld a#&ment o#r net1or6 of intellect#al approaches considerably: (Cen#ti 2777+ !). K#rin& 19!7s and 19D7s, translation theories are foc#sed on the concept of translatability. Iillard van 2rman L#ine"s (19D7) later pra&matic vie1 of translation 1as centered on meanin& as conventional, socially circ#mscribed, the translated (forei&n) te(t bein& re1ritten in accordance 1ith the val#es, beliefs and e(pressive means of the forei&n lan&#a&e c#lt#re. He refers to a basic semantic <indeterminacy" that cannot be cleared a1ay even if there is an environmental <stim#l#s". 8#rther on, d#rin& the 19 7s and 1977s, translatin& is seen as 9a process of comm#nicatin& the forei&n te(t by establishin& a relationship of identity or analo&y 1ith it: (Cen#ti 2777+121). No1 the concept of e.#ivalence is at the basis of translation theory (see 3hapter >). 8or e(ample, 1ith Nabo6ov, the process of <dissemination" of meanin&, time, people, c#lt#ral bo#ndaries becomes the necessity of demonstratin& that any lan&#a&e co#ld al1ays be <shado1ed" or <possessed" by another (=ontilU, in Aon?ales and $olron 277 + 1!!). Nabo6ov distin&#ishes three main types of translation+ 1. <paraphrastic" (offerin& a free version of the ori&inal, 1ith omissions and additions prompted by the e(i&encies of form, the conventions attrib#ted to the cons#mer, and the translator"s i&norance)5 2. le(ical (renderin& the basic meanin& of 1ords and their order)5 >. literal (renderin&, as closely as the associative and syntactical capacities of another lan&#a&e allo1, the e(act conte(t#al meanin& of the ori&inal (Nabo6ov 197!,1,vii%viii,.td in =ontilU 277 + 1!D). K#rin& the 1977s, 4. @ven%Pohar and A. $o#ry considered literat#re as a <polysystem" of interrelated forms and cannons that represented <norms" constrainin& the

translator"s choices and the translation strate&ies. 0oreover, @ven Pohar ar&#ed that translation may adhere to norms re;ected by the so#rce lan&#a&e. 4n $o#ry"s opinion, the tar&et%oriented translations chan&ed the concept of e.#ivalence. He foc#sed on the concepts of ade%uacy and acceptability. He fo#nd the ade.#acy of the translation to the S$ not reliable beca#se of the shifts occ#rrin& in translation, on the one hand, and beca#se of the need to apply certain tar&et norms in determinin& ade.#acy, on the other. $he concept of acceptability of the translated te(t in the $3 is closely lin6ed to the concept of ade.#acy, sho1in& the vario#s shifts related to a certain type of e.#ivalence. )olysystem theory represents a real pro&ress in translation st#dies, interestin& pro;ects on translation corpora bein& developed d#rin& this decade. Some important translation theorists, @. Nida (19 D) and I. Iills (1977, 19B2) incl#ded, considered translation to be a science. /ccordin& to A. Steiner (197D), 9&reat translation m#st carry 1ith it the most precise sense possible of the resistant, of the barriers intact at the heart of #nderstandin&: (Steiner 197D+ >7B). $herefore, an aspect mar6in& these decades 1as that translation 1as vie1ed as the renderin& of a so#rce lan&#a&e te(t (S-$) into a tar&et lan&#a&e te(t ($-$) so as to ens#re that the s#rface meanin& of the t1o 1ill be appro(imately similar and that the str#ct#res of the so#rce te(t (S$) 1ill be preserved as closely as possible on condition they do not affect the tar&et te(t ($$) str#ct#res. $his is a restricted vie1 of translation, beca#se it lays stress on the syntactic system of the lan&#a&e st#died. 4t &oes hand in hand 1ith both the #nderestimation of the art and 1ith the lo1 stat#s accorded to the translator. 4n this respect, 1hat H. =elloc (19>1, .td. in S. =assnett%0cA#ire 1991+2) 1rote lon& a&o (still proves perfectly applicable today, i.e. that the art of translation has never been &ranted the di&nity of the ori&inal 1or6 and that this nat#ral #nderestimation of its val#e has almost destroyed the art alto&ether. $h#s, the correspondin& mis#nderstandin& of its character has added to its de&radation+ ither its importance nor its diffic#lty has been &rasped.

$ranslation has been considered a secondary activity, a ,mechanical, rather than a ,creative, process. 0oreover, it is the prod#ct only, the res#lt of translation process that has been analysed, not the process itself. 1.>.1.2. 4t is tr#e that, to a &reat e(tent, the thin6in& of most translation theorists (1ith a small n#mber of e(ceptions, e.&. @. Nida, and J.3. 3atford in the mid 19 7s) has been dominated by $ytlerVs thin6in& p#t for1ard in an essay 1ritten in 1791. $odayVs normative approach, i.e. the settin& #p of a series of ma(ims consistin& of doVs and donVts, can be traced bac6 to $ytlerVs r#les 1hich 1ere normative prescriptions derivin& from the s#b;ective and eval#ative description of a ,&ood translation,. He set forth three ,la1s,. 1) the translation sho#ld &ive a complete transcript of the ideas of the ori&inal 1or65 2) the style and manner of 1ritin& sho#ld be of the same character 1ith that of the ori&inal5 >) the translation sho#ld have all the ease of the ori&inal composition. $ytler ar&#es that these r#les 1o#ld flo1 from an acc#rate definition of a ,&ood translation,, i.e. the translation ,in 1hich the merit of the ori&inal is so completely transf#sed into another lan&#a&e, as to be as distinctly apprehended, and as stron&ly felt by a native of the co#ntry to 1hich that lan&#a&e belon&s, as it is by those 1ho spea6 the lan&#a&e of the ori&inal 1or6, ($ytler 1791+79, .#oted by M. =ell 1991+11). $h#s, $ytler is a1are of the t1o e(treme positions adopted in relation to translation+ % to attend only the sense and spirit of the ori&inal5 therefore, it is allo1able to improve and embellish5 % to convey the style and manner of 1ritin& of the ori&inal5 therefore, it is necessary to preserve even blemishes and defects. / ne1 sta&e of the debate on translation 1as opened by J.3.3atford (19 D) 1ho tac6led the problem of lin&#istic #ntranslability and s#&&ested that the t1o ,processes, of translation and transference m#st be clearly differentiated in any theory of translation, on the &ro#nd that translation is the s#bstit#tion of tar&et lan&#a&e ($-) meanin&s for the so#rce lan&#a&e (S-) meanin&s, not the transference of $- meanin&s into the S-, 1hereas transference is an implantation of S- meanin&s into the $- te(t. $his, of co#rse, implies a narro1 theory of meanin&, beca#se it is important for the lin&#ist only. $he disc#ssion of the

6ey%concepts of e.#ivalence (see section 1.17.) and c#lt#ral #ntranslability occ#rred m#ch later. 1.>.1.>. Areat pro&ress has been made in translation st#dies since 19 D, and clearly defined schools of translation st#dies have emer&ed placin& their emphasis on different aspects of this very vast field. $h#s, there are fo#r &eneral areas of interest, 1ith a de&ree of overlap bet1een them. $1o of them are prod#ct%oriented, the emphasis bein& laid on the f#nctional aspects of the $- te(t in relation to the S- te(t, and t1o of them are process%oriented, the emphasis bein& on the analysis of 1hat act#ally ta6es place d#rin& the translatin& process. /s S. =assnett%0cA#ire (1991+7WB) 1rites, the first cate&ory involves the History of $ranslation and investi&ates the theories of translation and translation criticism at different times, the methodolo&ical development of translation, and the analysis of the 1or6 of individ#al translators. $he second cate&ory, $ranslation in the $- 3#lt#re, investi&ates sin&le te(ts or a#thors, the infl#ence of a te(t, or a#thor on the absorption of the norms of the translated te(t into the $- system and on the principles of selection 1hich operate 1ithin that system. $he third cate&ory, $ranslation and -in&#istics, is concerned 1ith the comparative arran&ement of lin&#istic elements of the S- and $- te(ts re&ardin& the phonemic, morphemic, le(ical, synta&matic and syntactic levels. $herefore, it incl#des the problems of lin&#istic e.#ivalence, lin&#istic #ntranslability, and the translation problems of non%literary te(ts. $he fo#rth cate&ory, $ranslation and )oetics, refers to the literary translation theory and practice. 2n this line of thin6in&, J.S. HolmesV descriptive theory of translation incl#des prod#ct%oriented, f#nction%oriented, and process%oriented descriptions (J.S. Holmes 1972, 197D+12W1!). $he prod#ct%oriented description became the approach most identified 1ith the later translation st#dies. 4t 1as concerned 1ith a ,te(t%foc#sed, empirical description of translations, and 1ith lar&er corp#ses of translations in a specific period, lan&#a&e or disco#rse type. $he f#nction%oriented description introd#ced a c#lt#ral component 1hich

17

affected the reception of the $$. $he process%oriented approach 1as concerned 1ith the problem of the ,blac6 bo(,, i.e. 1hat 1as &oin& on in the translatorVs mind. /. -efevere (197D) prefers HolmesV second description, i.e. the one that privile&es the f#nction of the te(t on the ori&inal readers. His prescriptions recall NidaVs and IilssV conceptions, namely that the translatorVs tas6 is to render the S$, the ori&inal a#thorVs interpretation of a &iven theme e(pressed in a n#mber of variations by replacin& the ori&inal a#thorVs variation 1ith their e.#ivalents in a different lan&#a&e, time, place and tradition (-efevere 197D+99). 4n his opinion, partic#lar emphasis m#st be laid on the fact that the translator has to replace all the variations contained in the S$ by their e.#ivalents (see 3hapter >). 1.(.&. Other lang%age$6ase' )ie s on translation. /nother definition of translation describes it as the replacement of a representation of a te(t in one lan&#a&e by a representation of an e.#ivalent te(t in a second lan&#a&e (Hartmann and Stor6 1972+71>, .td. in M. =ell 1991+22). $ranslation 1as also defined as the e(pression in the $- of 1hat has been e(pressed in the S-, preservin& the semantic and stylistic e.#ivalences (K#bois 197>, .td. in M. =ell 1991+22). I. Iilss, a &reat representative of the science of translation in Aermany, 1rites that the #pon+ a) the concept of a #niversal lan&#a&e5 b)the belief that deep%str#ct#re transfer is possible by a hermene#tic process, and c)the .#alitative ran6in& of te(ts, from a hi&h level incorporatin& art and science te(ts to a lo1 level incl#din& b#siness and pra&matic te(ts. 4n Iills"opinion, translation research m#st develop a frame of reference to vie1 a te(t as a comm#nication%oriented confi&#ration 1ith a thematic, f#nctional and te(t% pra&matic dimension. $hese three te(t dimensions can be derived from the s#rface str#ct#re of the respective te(t. He ar&#es that the deep str#ct#re of the lan&#a&e (in 1hich he incl#des the si&n in the conte(t) can be determined and transformed into any lan&#a&e in science of translation is not a sealed, ,nomolo&ical, science b#t a ,co&nitive'hermene#tic'associative, one (Iills 19B2+1 ). His translation theory is based

11

any contemporary conte(t. $h#s, he refers to NidaVs ar&#ment that the interlin&#al comm#nication is possible d#e to t1o factors+ 1) semantic similarities in lan&#a&es are d#e to ,the common core of h#man e(perience,, and 2) there are f#ndamental similarities in the ,syntactic str#ct#re of lan&#a&es, especially at the so%called 6ernel, or core level, (Nida 19 9+!B> .td. by I. Iilss 19B2+!9). He ends his theory 1ith the prono#ncement that ,everythin& can be e(pressed in every lan&#a&e,, (I. Iills 19B2+!B). $his vie1 is 1idespread in modern lin&#istics. -ater on he considers that the lar&e de&ree of variability in translated te(ts is less a fa#lt of the 1ell%trained translator, and more a res#lt of the differin& c#lt#ral conte(ts in 1hich the translators find themselves and their s#b;ective creative decisions (see ch.>). $hat is to say, the c#lt#ral factors do not only infl#ence the final prod#ct, b#t also 1ei&h #pon the decision%ma6in& process. 3onse.#ently, he says+ ,4 do believe that there are many aspects of translation that transcend the c#lt#ral bo#ndaries and that they are, in fact, #niversal, (Iills 19B9+1>!). $.Hermans"s collection of essays (19BD) aro#sed a &reat deal of debate beca#se the contrib#tors to that vol#me tho#&ht that translation editin& 1as a manip#latory process. $hey said that by e(aminin& 1hat too6 place d#rin& the processes of readin&, re1ritin& in another lan&#a&e and the s#bse.#ent reception, attention 1as shifted a1ay from the S$ and its c#lt#ral bac6&ro#nd. Some translators tho#&ht that their main tas6 1as to e(amine the impact of the translation in the tar&et system. / ,prototypolo&y, 1as s#&&ested by 0.Snell%Hornby (19BB), a more fle(ible Aestalt%li6e system 1ith bl#rred ed&es. She offers a very complicated stratification model proceedin& from a &eneral level (macrolevel) to more partic#lar levels (microlevels) (@. Aent?ler 199>+72). Ho1ever, as Aent?ler (ibid.) concl#des, ,1hether the Snell%Hornby model achieves an inte&rated approach for $ranslation St#dies remains to be seen., 3onse.#ently, most of these translation st#dies are directed primarily to teachin& translators or eval#atin& translations, bein& prescriptive in nat#re. $hey rely too heavily #pon very traditional dichotomies of &ood ' bad and faithf#l ' free. $hey also tend to be so#rce%oriented in nat#re, ar&#in& that the ori&inal embodies some sort of deep str#ct#re,

12

1hich contains the information necessary for its s#bse.#ent encodin& in another lan&#a&e to 1hich the translator m#st remain faithf#l. $h#s they are concerned only 1ith reprod#cin& the ori&inal. @. Aent?ler considers that ,s#ch an approach reaffirms anti.#ated notions of translation, notions 1hich vie1 translations as second%hand, merely servin& as handmaiden of a hi&her, more creative art. $he bi&&est problem is that the foc#s of these sciences Fof translationH is too narro1. $hey loo6 primarily at 1hat is a non%verifiable space % i.e. the blac6 bo( of the h#man mind%and ma6e lar&e statements not only abo#t translability b#t also abo#t ho1 that process sho#ld occ#r, (Aent?ler 199>+7>). $o all this, the idea is 1orth mentionin& that a more comple( vie1 of translation sho#ld consider the c#lt#ral feat#res of the S$. 3#lt#re becomes the operational #nit of translation (=assnett 1991). S#ch an opinion is different from ). Ne1mar6"s opinion that the operational #nit of translation is the te(t. $o concl#de, the translator has to &rasp the partic#lar elements of the S$ and render them in a different c#lt#ral conte(t. /s a mediator bet1een t1o -3s, (s)he compares and converts t1o different lan&#a&e systems, t1o different c#lt#res.

1>

C7APTER &

T8PES OF TRANSLATION

$here are three &la"s' (for a ,&ood translation9)+ 1) the translated te(t ' tar&et te(t ($$) sho#ld &ive a complete transcript of the ideas of the ori&inal 1or65 2) the style and manner of 1ritin& sho#ld be the same as that of the ori&inal te(t ' so#rce te(t (S$)5 >) the translation sho#ld have all the ease ' fl#ency of the ori&inal te(t. 4n Ja6obsonVs opinion, there is no complete e.#ivalence thro#&h translation, and even apparent synonymy does not yield e.#ivalence (in the sense of synonymy or sameness), beca#se each #nit contains 1ithin itself a set of non%transferable associations and connotations, hence all poetic art is technically #ntranslatable.

Intraling%al translation 9rewording: + interpretation of verbal si&ns by means of other si&ns of the same lan&#a&e. Interling%al translation 9translation proper: + interpretation of verbal si&ns by means of some other lan&#a&e. Interse"iotic translation 9transmutation: + interpretation of verbal si&ns by means of si&ns of nonverbal si&n systems. (Ja6obson 19D9+ 2>2%9'277!+ 1>9)

1!

His opinion is ta6en #p by A. 0o#nin (19 >), 1ho considers translation a series of operations of 1hich the startin& point and the end%prod#ct are si&nifications and f#nction 1ithin a &iven c#lt#re. He s#&&ests that the translator has to resort to a combination of #nits in order to find an appro(imate e.#ivalent. $h#s, his opinion resembles M. Ja6obsonVs statement that translation is only an ade.#ate interpretation of an alien code #nit and e.#ivalence is impossible. 3onsiderin& the levels of lan&#a&e analysis, J.3. 3atford (19 D+ 2!D) made a hierarchic (level%dependin&) classification of translations+ a) ran6%bo#nd translations in 1hich the selection of $- e.#ivalents is deliberately confined to one ran6, #sed in machine translation, #s#ally at 1ord or morpheme ran65 they set #p 1ord%to%1ord or morpheme%to%morpheme e.#ivalences, b#t not e.#ivalences bet1een hi&h%ran6 #nits s#ch as the &ro#p, cla#se, or sentence5 s#ch translations are often ,bad, in that they involve #sin& $- e.#ivalents 1hich are not appropriate to their location in the $- te(t, and 1hich are not ;#stified by the interchan&eability of S- and $- te(ts in one and the same sit#ation (3atfort 19 D+2D)5 b) #nbo#nded translations, i.e. normal, total translations in 1hich e.#ivalences shift freely #p and do1n the ran6 scale. /ccordin& to the e(tent and level, J.3.3atford classifies translations into+ a) f#ll vs. partial translations, referrin& to the e(tent in a synta&matic sense5 b) f#ll vs. restricted translations related to the levels of lan&#a&e involved in the translation process. $he total translation is, in his conception, the replacement of S- &rammar and le(is by e.#ivalent $- &rammar and le(is 1ith conse.#ential replacement of S- phonolo&y ' &rapholo&y by (non%e.#ivalent) $- phonolo&y ' &rapholo&y. $he restricted translation is the replacement of S- te(t#al material by e.#ivalent $te(t#al material at only one level (either phonolo&ical or &raphic), or only at one of the t1o levels of &rammar and le(is. 3atford distin&#ishes bet1een free, literal and 1ord%for%1ord translations

$ypes of translation+ 1. free translation 2. 1ord%for%1ord translation >. literal translation (3atford 19 D)

8ree translation % #nbo#nded (e.#ivalences tend to be at the hi&her ran6s, even bet1een lar&er #nits than the sentence)

1D

0ore often than not, it implies le(ical adaptation to the $collocational or ,idiomatic, re.#irements. Iord%for%1ord translation % ran6 % bo#nd (1ord X ran6) -iteral translation % 1ord%for%1ord % &ro#p%&ro#p % cla#se%cla#se /s a r#le, it chan&es in 6eepin& 1ith the $- &rammar (e.&. insertin& additional 1ords, chan&in& str#ct#res at any ran6). $he literal translation, li6e the 1ord%for%1ord one, tends to remain le(ically 1ord%for%1ord, i.e. to #se the hi&hest probability le(ical e.#ivalent for each le(ical item. -e(ical adaptation to $- collocational or ,idiomatic, re.#irements seems to be characteristic of free translation. &.1. Literar, )s non$literar, 9Kependin& on the mode of so#rce te(t, translation is divided into+ translation of literary texts (poetry, drama, novels, memoires, etc.), and of non-literary, or pragmatic texts: (4onesc# 2777+>7). $he essential difference bet1een these t1o modes lies in the aesthetic effect that has to be rendered to&ether 1ith and thro#&h the translated version of a literary piece, 1hereas in a so%called semantic (non%literary te(t), 1hat has to be conveyed via translation is the semantic content of the ori&inal in the tar&et lan&#a&e. $he difference bet1een literary and non%literary translation is that ,the latter translates 1hat is in the te(t, 1hereas the former m#st translate 1hat the te(t implies, (4onesc# 2777+>B). -iterary translation is different from translation in &eneral far the same reasons that literat#re is different from non%literary #ses of lan&#a&e. -iterat#re is distin&#ished from them, first by ,the semiotici?ation of disc#rsive feat#res, then by the s#bstit#tion of semiosis for mimesis Ythat covers the conse.#ences of the indirectness of meanin& that is the pivot an 1hich literariness t#rns, (4onesc# 2777+>B). 0oreover, an interte(t is bein& created by te(t#ality that inte&rates semantic components into one closed finite semiotic system, and readers become a1are of it ,once they perceive that the discrete meanin& of the 1ards, phrases, and sentences composin& the te(t ass#me ne1 f#nctions in its &eneral scheme. -iterary translation m#st reflect or imitate these differences, (4onesc# 2777+>B). $he literary te(t re.#ires a do#ble decodin&, at the levels of both systemic and of its component parts. $his decodin& m#st be translated in a 1ay that 1ill ind#ce the reader to

perform a do#ble decodin&. -iterary translation m#st also ,convey those feat#res of the ori&inal te(t that are the races left by its prod#ction. /ll these si&ns are in fact forms of literariness, s#ch as si&ns indicatin& the &enre of the respective te(t5 these si&ns are implicitly cond#cive to the style #sed in the ori&inal te(t and rendered appropriately in the tar&et te(t, (4onesc# 2777+>B). /ltho#&h some aspects of literary te(ts, s#ch as the story, characters, descriptions of places, etc., ,#s#ally carry over fairly easily from a so#rce te(t to a tar&et te(t, yet even these transferable realities 1ill elicit some1hat different reactions in the tar&et te(t reader+ at some psycholo&ical or aesthetic level, any reader of a translation 1ill react differently from a reader of the ori&inal, (Hic6ley 199B+22 ). ,$he fail#re of many translators to #nderstand that a literary te(t is made #p of a comple( set of systems e(istin& in a dialectical relationship 1ith other sets o#tside its bo#ndaries has often led them to foc#s on partic#lar aspects of a te(t at the e(pense of others, (=assnett 19B7+7 ). St#dyin& the avera&e reader, -otman distin&#ishes bet1een fo#r positions of the addressee+ 1. Ihere the reader foc#ses on the content as matter, i.e. pic6s o#t the prose ar&#ment or poetic paraphrase. 2. Ihere the reader &rasps the comple(ity of the str#ct#re of a 1or6 and the 1ay in 1hich the vario#s levels interact. >. Ihere the reader deliberately e(trapolates one level of the 1or6 for a specific p#rpose. !. Ihere the reader discovers elements not basic to the &enesis of the te(t and #ses the te(t for his o1n p#rpose. /ccordin& to =assnett, for the p#rpose of translation, the first position 1o#ld be ,completely inade.#ate (altho#&h many translators of novels in partic#lar have foc#sed on content at the e(pense of the formal str#ct#rin& of the te(t),, the second position ,1o#ld seem an ideal startin& point,, 1hilst the third and the fo#rth position ,mi&ht be tenable in certain circ#mstances, (=assnett 19B7+7B). She ar&#es that ,the translator is, after all, first a reader and then a 1riter and in the process of readin& he or she m#st ta6e a position, (=assnett 19B7+7B).

17

$here 1ere also many debates re&ardin& the iss#e of differentiatin& bet1een translations, versions, adaptations and the establishment of VcorrectnessV bet1een these cate&ories. Eet the differentiation bet1een them derives from ,a concept of the reader as the passive receiver of the te(t in 1hich its $r#th is enshrined, (=assnett 19B7+79). 4n other 1ords, if the te(t is perceived as an ob;ect that sho#ld only prod#ce a sin&le invariant readin&, any deviation on the part of the reader or translator 1ill be ;#d&ed as a trans&ression. S#ch a ;#d&ment mi&ht be made re&ardin& scientific doc#ments, for e(ample, 1here facts are set o#t and presents in #n.#alifiedly ob;ective terms for the reader of so#rce lan&#a&e and tar&et lan&#a&e ali6e, b#t 1ith literary te(ts the position is different. -iterat#re and literat#re translation broadly r#ns alon& a fo#r%point scale from lyrical poetry thro#&h the short story and the novel to drama. )oetry is the most personal and concentrated of the fo#r forms5 poetry is devoid of any red#ndancy or comm#nication force, and the 1ord, as a #nit, ac.#ires &reater importance than in any other type of te(t. $he terms of reference in a poetic te(t are the le(ical 1ord and the line ' verse, not sentence. )#nct#ation and prosody are the conveyers of concentrated messa&es, as it essentially reprod#ces the tone of the ori&inal. ,4n translatin& a poem, 1hat matters first and foremost, besides preservation of line and p#nct#ation format % is rendition of the so#rce metaphors. $o render % as acc#rately as possible % the metaphorical e(pressions is the to#chstone of any translator, beca#se thro#&h metaphor, the translator has to 6eep the inte&rity of both le(ical #nits and the lines 1ithin the conte(t, (4onesc# 2777+22!). ). Ne1mar6 (199D) considers that the translator is d#ty bo#nd to reprod#ce the ori&inal metaphors most scr#p#lo#sly, even if they are li6ely to ca#se c#lt#ral shoc6. 4n the translation of prose, the translator is released from the obvio#s constraints of poetry X metre and rhyme5 he is free to #se c#lt#ral &losses and notes 1ithin the te(t. 0oreover, prose pres#pposes e(istence of certain cohesives that may have handier e.#ivalents in tar&et lan&#a&e. /s for the 6ey 1ords or 6ey%concepts, ,translators have to assess their te(ts critically5 they have to decide 1hich le(ical #nits are central and have more important f#nction, and 1hich are peripheral, so that the relative &ains and loses in a translation may correspond to their assessment, (4onesc# 2777+229).

1B

$he standards as 1ell the characteristic feat#res, 1hether le(ical%semantic, syntactic, or pra&matic of non%literary translation are ,in direct relationship 1ith the type of te(t%to%be%translated+ technical translation, for instance, is ;#st one part of speciali?ed translation, instit#tional translation, i.e. the area of politics, commerce, b#siness, &overnment, la1, is the other, (4onesc# 2777+!2). 4n CermeerVs vie1, the difference bet1een literary and other types of te(ts is one of de&ree and not of 6ind. ,@ven special lan&#a&es are characteri?ed by metaphor, and ;o#rnalistic lan&#a&e abo#nds in VliteraryV devices s#ch as alliterations, 1ord%play, similes or metaphors, (4onesc# 2777+22>). 4n the vie1 held in present, literary lan&#a&e is concerned 1ith the e(ploitation of the entire capacity of a lan&#a&e system. 4n 0. Snell% HornbyVs 1ords, it ,involves not merely deviance from a static and prescriptive norm % b#t the creative e(tension of the lan&#a&e norm, in the fle(ible sense of the r#le% &overned potential. /s re&ards translation, one of the literary translatorVs most diffic#lt choices is decidin& ho1 s#ch creative e(tensions of the so#rce%lan&#a&e norm can be rendered in the tar&et lan&#a&e 1itho#t act#ally infrin&in& the r#les of lin&#istic acceptability, (Snell%Hornby 19BB+D2). &.&. ;eneral )s speciali<e' $here is a distinction bet1een general translation ( interpretation and speciali$ed translation or interpretation . Aeneral translation ' interpretation is the translation or interpretation of non% specific lan&#a&e that does not re.#ire any speciali?ed vocab#lary or 6no1led&e. Ho1ever, the best translators and interpreters read e(tensively in order to be #p%to% date 1ith c#rrent events and trends so that they are able to do their 1or6 to the best of their ability, havin& 6no1led&e of 1hat they mi&ht be as6ed to convert. 4n addition, &ood translators and interpreters ma6e an effort to read abo#t 1hatever topic they are c#rrently 1or6in& on. 4f a translator is as6ed to translate an article on or&anic farmin&, for e(ample, he or she 1o#ld be 1ell served to read abo#t or&anic farmin& in both lan&#a&es in order to #nderstand the topic and the accepted terms #sed in each lan&#a&e.

19

Speciali?ed translation or interpretation refers to domains that re.#ire at the very least that the person be e(tremely 1ell read in the domain. @ven better is trainin& in the field (s#ch as a colle&e de&ree in the s#b;ect, or a speciali?ed co#rse in that type of translation or interpretation). Some common types of speciali?ed translation and interpretation are+ 8inancial translation and interpretation -iterary translation 0edical translation and interpretation Scientific translation and interpretation $echnical translation and interpretation -e&al translation and interpretation -e&al translation is the translation of te(ts 1ithin the field of la1. /s la1 is a c#lt#re% dependent s#b;ect field, le&al translation is not a simple tas6. $he le&al system of the so#rce te(t is str#ct#red in a 1ay that s#its that c#lt#re and this is reflected in the le&al lan&#a&e5 similarly, the tar&et te(t is to be read by someone 1ho is familiar 1ith another le&al system and its lan&#a&e. /part from terminolo&ical lac#nae, or le(ical &aps, the translator may foc#s on the follo1in& aspects. $e(t#al conventions in the so#rce lan&#a&e are often c#lt#re%dependent and may not correspond to conventions in the tar&et c#lt#re. -in&#istic str#ct#res that are often fo#nd in the so#rce lan&#a&e have no direct e.#ivalent str#ct#res in the tar&et lan&#a&e. $he translator therefore has to find tar&et lan&#a&e str#ct#res 1ith the same f#nctions as those in the so#rce lan&#a&e. $ypical of this 6ind of te(t is the e(pository disco#rse, consistin& of plain, stylistically #nmar6ed sentences, hence the relevant piece of information is hard to capt#re, #nless the reader is a le&al e(pert himself. Speciali?ed 6no1led&e is a prere.#isite of ade.#ate comprehension of the ,ne1, and ,&ivenV information. $he same ass#mption holds for any 6ind of special te(t, 1hether technical, le&al, or medical. ,/ trained translator sho#ld be able to translate very diffic#lt scientific and technical te(ts, b#t s(he) sho#ld also have ac.#ired more &enerali?ed speciali?ations, s#ch as research s6ills, terminolo&y mana&ement, and electronic information so#rces, (4onesc# 2777+27!).

27

&.(. Fro" or'$for$ or' to co""%nicati)e translations No matter the name it bears, the choice is an ideolo&ical one+ free and literal translation, dynamic and formal e%uivalence ()ida *+,- , communicative and semantic translation ()e"mar. *+/* , domesticating and foreigni$ing translation (0enuti *++1 , minimal mediation vs maximal mediation ()abo.ov *+,- . Cen#ti"s point of vie1 deserves some f#rther attention as he spea6s of the @n&lish c#lt#ral he&emony. 4n domesticatin& te(ts, the translator adopts a strate&y thro#&h 1hich the $-, not the S- is c#lt#rally dominant. 3#lt#re%specific terms are ne#trali?ed and re%e(pressed in terms of 1hat is familiar to the dominant c#lt#re. 4f the translation is done from a c#lt#rally dominant S- to a minority%stat#s $-, domestication protects S- val#es. &.(.1. T,pes of translation

1. =or'$for$ or' translation &. Literal translation (. Faithf%l translation *. Se"antic translation 1. A'aptation 2. Free translation 3. I'io"atic translation 5. Co""%nicati)e translation

0ention sho#ld be made that the first fo#r types distinctly manifest a Sorientation, 1hile the last fo#r a $- emphasis. 2ord-for-"ord translation X the S- 1ords are closely follo1ed. S- order is preserved, 1ord meanin&s are ta6en o#t of conte(t. 3#lt#ral 1ords are e(actly ' literally rendered. 3learly, this method is to be #sed as a pre%translation process. 21

 3iteral translation X the S- &rammatical constr#ctions are converted to their nearest $- e.#ivalence. -e(ical items are translated in isolation, o#t of conte(t. -iteral translation is also a pre%translation process. 4aithful translation tries to reprod#ce the precise conte(t#al meanin& of the S1ords b#t 1ithin the constraints of the $- &rammar. 3#lt#ral 1ords are transferred and the same applies to the $- &rammatical and le(ical 9abnormalities: (as compared to the S-). $his 6ind of translation is as faithf#l as possible to the 1riter"s intentions. 4t can be labelled as #ncompromisin& and do&matic. Semantic translation foc#ses on the aesthetic val#e (the bea#tif#l and the nat#ral so#nd) of the S- te(t, compensatin& and compromisin& on meanin&. 3#lt#ral 1ords may be translated by a third c#lt#rally ne#tral term or by a f#nctional term and not by c#lt#ral e.#ivalents. Semantic translation is more fle(ible, more creative, more ima&inative5 it lar&ely allo1s the translator"s empathy to 1or6. 5daptation is said to be the freest form of translation. 4t is mainly #sed for plays (comedies) and poetry. 2f co#rse, the themes, characters, and the plot are preserved. $he S- c#lt#ral terms are converted to the $- c#lt#re and the te(t is practically re%1ritten. 4ree translation reprod#ces the matter 1itho#t the manner, i.e. the conte(t 1itho#t the form of the ori&inal. $he paraphrase is #s#ally #sed5 1e deal in fact 1ith intralin&#al translation. 6diomatic translation reprod#ces the messa&e of the ori&inal, b#t distorts shades of meanin& by sho1in& preference to collo.#ialisms and idioms 1here these do not appear in the S- te(t. 7ommunicative translation attempts to convey the most precise conte(t#al meanin& of the ori&inal. =oth content and lan&#a&e are readily acceptable and comprehensible. &.(.&. Se"antic an' co""%nicati)e translation 2f all these methods, only semantic and communicative translations f#lfill the t1o ma;or aims of translation+ acc#racy and economy. Similarities bet1een the t1o 22

methods are also to be noticed+ both #se stoc6 and dead metaphors, normal collocations, technical terms, collo.#ialisms, slan&, phaticisms, ordinary lan&#a&e. $he e(pressive components (#n#s#al collocations and synta(, stri6in& metaphors, neolo&isms) are rendered very closely even literally in e(pressive te(ts 1hile in vocative and informative te(ts they are normali?ed or toned do1n (e(cept for advertisements). Some scholars (Ho#se 1977, Ne1mar6 19BB) refer to these t1o possibilities of choice 1hile attachin& them different labels+ - semantic translation+ art, co&nitive translation, overt (c#lt#re%lin6ed) translation, overtranslation5 - communicative translation+ craft, f#nctional or pra&matic translation, covert (c#lt#re%free) translation, #ndertranslation. / semantic translation is li6ely to be more economical than a comm#nicative translation. /s a r#le, a semantic translation is 1ritten at the a#thor"s lin&#istic level, a comm#nicative translation at the readership"s. 4t is also 1orth mentionin& that a semantic translation is more s#itable for e(pressive te(ts (more specifically for descriptive te(ts, definitions, e(planations), a comm#nicative translation for informative and vocative te(ts (standardi?ed or form#laic lan&#a&e deservin& special attention). 3#lt#ral components are transferred intact in e(pressive translation, transferred and e(plained 1ith c#lt#rally ne#tral terms in informative translation, replaced by c#lt#ral e.#ivalents in vocative translation. / semantic translation remains 1ithin the bo#ndaries of the so#rce lan&#a&e c#lt#re, assistin& the reader only 1ith connotations. / comm#nicative translation displays a &enero#s transfer of forei&n elements 1ith an emphasis on force (intended meanin&) rather than on messa&e. 3onse.#ently, semantic translation is personal, individ#al, searchin& for n#ances of meanin&5 it tends to over%translate, yet it aims at concision. 2n the other hand, comm#nicative translation is social, it concentrates on the messa&e (the referential basis or the tr#th of information is sec#red) and it tends to #nder%translate, to be simple and clear. Ho1ever, it so#nds nat#ral and reso#rcef#l (semantic translation may so#nd a161ard and .#ite #nnat#ral to the tar&et lan&#a&e reader as the lan&#a&e #sed is often fi&#rative). / semantic translation has to interpret, therefore it does not e.#al the ori&inal. $he problem of loss of meanin& fre.#ently arises in this case. / comm#nicative

2>

translation has to e(plain, it is more idiomatic and it is often said to be better than the ori&inal. / semantic translation reco&ni?es the S-$ a#thor"s defined a#thority, preservin& local flavo#r intact. /s Steiner (197D+ 29B) p#ts it, 9$he translator invades, e(tracts and brin&s home. &.(.(. E+%i)alent effect 3homs6y denied that lan&#a&e is primarily comm#nicative and believed only in the strict lin&#istic meanin& 1itho#t resortin& to c#lt#ral adaptations. / comm#nicative translation is a recast in modern c#lt#re, sheddin& ne1 li&ht on #niversal themes. Nida (197B), doin& some pioneerin& 1or6, clearly states that translatin& is comm#nicatin&. Nevertheless, the translator"s freedom seems to be limited in both, as there is constant conflict of interests or loyalties. /ltho#&h o#r disc#ssion constantly foc#ses on the translator and not on the interpreter, it is 1orth rememberin& that the interpreter"s loyalties are divided in diplomacy and there is a role conflict for the co#rt interpreter (seatin& nearer the defense or nearer the prosec#tion can affect the tr#st in his impartiality). $ranslation st#dies recommend that the overridin& p#rpose of any translation sho#ld be the e%uivalent effect, i.e. to prod#ce the same effect (or one as close as possible) on the readership of the translation as on the readership of the ori&inal. $his principle is also termed e%uivalent response or, in Nida"s 1ords, dynamic e%uivalence. Kynamic e.#ivalence can be e.#ated 1ith the reader"s shado1y presence in the mind of the translator, and contrasted to formal e%uivalence, i.e. e.#ivalence of both form and content bet1een the t1o te(ts. Ne1mar6 (19B1) sees the e.#ivalent effect as the desirable res#lt rather than the aim of the translation. He ar&#es that this res#lt is #nli6ely in t1o cases+ if the p#rpose of the S- te(t is to affect and the p#rpose of the $- te(t is to inform5 if there is a clear c#lt#ral &ap bet1een S- te(t and $- te(t (in fact, translation merely fills a &ap bet1een t1o c#lt#res if, felicito#sly, there is no ins#perable c#lt#ral clash).

2!

$he c#lt#ral &ap is brid&ed more easily in comm#nicative translation, as it conforms to the #niversalist position advocatin& #niversally common tho#&hts and feelin&s. Semantic translation follo1s the relativist position X tho#&hts and feelin&s are predetermined by the lan&#a&es and c#lt#res in 1hich people 1ere born, for different people partition reality differently. 3onse.#ently, 1ord or 1ord%&ro#p is the minimal #nit of translation in the former case, the latter sho1in& preference for the sentence. Kealin& 1ith te(t%types, 1e may say that in the case of comm#nicative translation of vocative te(ts, the effect is essential, not only desirable. 4n informative te(ts, the effect is desirable only in respect of their insi&nificant emotional impact. $he vocative thread in these te(ts has nevertheless to be rendered 1ith an e.#ivalent p#rpose aim. 4n semantic translation, the first problem arises 1ith serio#s ima&inative literat#re 1here individ#al readers are the ones involved rather than a readership. Not to mention, that the translator is essentially tryin& to render the impact of the S- te(t on himself, his empathy 1ith the a#thor of the ori&inal. $he reaction is individ#al rather than #niversal. $he more c#lt#ral (the more local, the more remote in time and space) a te(t, the less is the e.#ivalent effect #nless the reader is ima&inative, sensitive and steeped in the S- c#lt#re. 3#lt#ral concessions are advised 1here the items are not important for local colo#r and 1here they ac.#ire no symbolic meanin&. 3omm#nicative translation is more li6ely to create e.#ivalent effect than semantic translation / remote te(t 1ill find an inevitably simplified, a version in translation. $he e.#ivalent effect can be considered an int#itive principle, a s6ill rather than an art. 4t is applicable to any type of te(t, only the de&ree of its importance varies from te(t to te(t. &.(.*. Other "etho's to 6e i'entifie'+ service translation - translation from oneVs lan&#a&e of habit#al #se into another lan&#a&e5 plain prose translation 8 translation of poems and poetic dramas (stan?as become para&raphs, ori&inal metaphors and c#lt#re%specific elements are retained no so#nd%effects bein& reprod#ced)5 information translation conveys all the information in a nonliterary te(t re% arran&ed in a more lo&ical form or s#mmari?ed5

2D

 cognitive translation reprod#ces the information in a S-$ convertin& the S&rammar to its normal $- transpositions (the fi&#rative meanin& is lost and it is mostly a pre%translation proced#re in a diffic#lt part of the te(t)5 academic translation (practiced in some =ritish #niversities), red#ces an ori&inal S- te(t to an ele&ant idiomatic ed#cated version 1hich follo1s an e(istent ' non% e(istent literary re&ister. &.*. Translation nor"s $he translator has to consider t1o basic principles+ % attendin& only the sense and spirit of the ori&inal (improvement and embellishment are allo1ed)5 % conveyin& the 1ritin& style and manner of the ori&inal (it is necessary to preserve even blemishes and defects). &.*.1. Changes fro" L1 to L& $e(t % a comm#nication%oriented confi&#ration 1ith a thematic, f#nctional and te(t%pra&matic dimension $he interlin&#al comm#nication is possible d#e to t1o factors+ 1. semantic similarities (d#e to ,the common core of h#man e(perience9) 2. f#ndamental similarities in the ,syntactic structure of lan&#a&es, especially at the so%called 6ernel, or core level, (Nida 19 9+!B> .td. by Iilss 19B2+!9, emphasis added). 9Everything can be e(pressed in every lan&#a&e, (Iills 19B2+ !B, emphasis added). $he cultural dimension is prevailin&. $he lar&e de&ree of variability in translated te(ts is a res#lt of the different c#lt#ral conte(ts in 1hich translators have to ma6e their final decisions $he c#lt#ral factors do not only infl#ence the final prod#ct, b#t also 1ei&h #pon the decision%ma6in& process. ,4 do believe that there are many aspects of translation that transcend the c#lt#ral bo#ndaries and that they are, in fact, #niversal, (Iills 19B9+1>!). $he cross-cultural .no"ledge is of #tmost importance for the translator as a mediator bet1een c#lt#res. $he translator has to 6no1 abo#t the culture-specific behaviour patterns in &eneral, and m#st not restrict his abilities merely to lin&#istic spheres. $he c#lt#ral elements 1ill mar6 differences bet1een the S$ and the $$, brin&in& abo#t a meanin& ind#cin& tension 1hich 1ill lead to variability in the translated te(ts. $he translator"s final decisions 1ill e(ert the &reatest infl#ence #pon the readability, acceptability and fl#ency of the $$.

&.*.&. Specificit, of the ST an' TT $he translator % the $ranslation 2perator ($2), e(plores -3 2 (lan&#a&e c#lt#re) 1ith the aim of findin& the ,e.#ivalent, to 1hat he has discovered in -31. $he $2Vs attention m#st be dra1n to the S-3 ' -3 1 % specific elements of the te(t (his readin& is al1ays sit#ated at the level of difference). Special attention m#st be paid to certain elements 1hich ta6e on a partic#lar importance 1hen considerin& the te(t from the -32 perspective. /nalysis of the s#rface synta( of the S$ is needed 1ith its e(plicit cla#se str#ct#res comin& to the implicit, #nderlyin&, #niversal meanin& carried by the propositions (there is no simple one%to%one relationship bet1een the syntactic and the propositional str#ct#re). &.*.(. The translator>s co"petence0 $he translator"s competence needs+ syntactic 6no1led&e (ho1 cla#ses are #sed to carry propositional content)5 semantic 6no1led&e (ho1 propositions are str#ct#red, meanin& bein& f#ndamental)5 pra&matic 6no1led&e (ho1 the cla#se can be reali?ed as information bearin& te(t and ho1 the te(t can be decomposed into cla#ses)5 4t is a fact that lac6 of 6no1led&e in any of these areas 1ill affect the translatorVs competence. $he technical translator"s competence needs+ 1. S- 6no1led&e 2. $- 6no1led&e >. te(t%type 6no1led&e !. s#b;ect area D. c#lt#ral 6no1led&e . contrastive 6no1led&e 7. the decodin& s6ills of readin& and encodin& s6ills of 1ritin&

SLC ?%t%al infl%ence

TLC

$he $2Vs competence % the ability to analyse, compare and convert t"o cultural systems, 1hile respectin& both the conflictin& forces 1ithin one -3, and the interplay of these forces.

27

C7APTER (

E@UIAALENCE IN TRANSLATION

(.1. The concept of e+%i)alence $he translatin& process also incl#des the problem of e.#ivalence bet1een te(ts (S$ and $$) and the e(tent to 1hich it is desirable or even possible to ,preserve, the semantic and'or stylistic characteristics of the S-$ in the co#rse of translatin& it into $-$. $he concept of e.#ivalence 1as considered to be based on #niversals of lan&#a&e and c#lt#re (A. 0o#nin 19 >). K#rin& these decades, this concept provided standards to eval#ate translations. <8aithf#l" translations opposed <bad" translations, and <bea#tif#l" translations opposed <#&ly" translations. @.#ivalence is s#bmitted to le(ical, &rammatical and stylistic analysis. 4n establishin& the degree of e%uivalence bet1een the S$ and $$, text typology and text function are of #tmost importance. OZller (1979+ 1B %191, 19B9+ 99%17!), one of the theorists 1hose main concern 1as e.#ivalence typolo&y, considered e.#ivalence to be denotative (dependin& on an <invariance of content"), connotative (dependin& on similarities of re&ister, dialect and style), text-normative (based on <#sa&e norms" specific to the te(t type) and pragmatic (related to the de&ree of comprehensibility in the $3). $he foc#s on the last type of e.#ivalence led to an opposition bet1een pra&matic e.#ivalence that made the $$ easily comprehensible in the $3 and formal e.#ivalence that ca#sed lin&#istic and c#lt#ral appro(imations. 4f the translator 1as concerned 1ith a formal e.#ivalence bet1een the S$ and $$, then (s)he co#ld have made 1ron& appro(imations at the lin&#istic and c#lt#ral level.

2B

/pproaches to e.#ivalence+ lin&#istic approach % lan&#a&e foc#s pra&matic [ semantic approach X c#lt#re foc#s lin&#istic, pra&matic [ semantic approach % lan&#a&e and c#lt#re foc#s

>.1.1. Nida (19 !) dre1 a distinction bet1een formal and dynamic e.#ivalence, the term dynamic bein& later replaced 1ith functional (Nida and $aber 19 9). 8ormal e.#ivalence+ 98ormal e.#ivalence foc#ses attention on the messa&e itself, in both form and content: (Nida 19 9+1DB), i#e. a $- item 1hich represents the closest e.#ivalent of a S- 1ord or phrase. Ho1ever, the follo1in& sit#ations are possible+ there may not be formal e.#ivalents bet1een lan&#a&e pairs5 formal e.#ivalents need to be #sed if the translation aims at achievin& formal rather than dynamic e.#ivalence5 serio#s mis#nderstandin&s may occ#r in the $$ since the translation 1ill not be easily #nderstood by the tar&et a#dience. /ccordin& to Nida and $aber (19B2+122), 9formal correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard9# Kynamic e.#ivalence+ Kynamic e.#ivalence is based #pon Vthe principle of e.#ivalent effectV (Nida 19 !+1D9). 4t is a translation principle accordin& to 1hich a translator see6s to translate the meanin& of the ori&inal in s#ch a 1ay that the $- 1ordin& 1ill tri&&er the same impact on the $- a#dience as the ori&inal 1ordin& did #pon the S$ a#dience. $he #ltimate &oal 1ill al1ays be nat#ralness in translation. 4t 1as considered to be a more efficient method.

29

>.1.2. Ne1mar6 (1977) distin&#ished bet1een communicative and semantic translation+ )arameter $ransmitter' /ddressee 8oc#s 3#lt#re Melation to S$ Se"antic Translation 8oc#s on the tho#&ht processes of the transmitter as an individ#al ($connotations if they are a cr#cial part of the messa&e) Memains 1ithin the Sc#lt#re /l1ays inferior to S$5 loss of meanin& Co""%nicati)e Translation S#b;ective, $$ reader% foc#sed, oriented to1ards a specific lan&#a&e and c#lt#re.

Sse of form of the S8orm of the $/ppropriatenes

$ransfers forei&n elements into the $- c#lt#re. 0ay be better than the S$5 gain of force and clarity even if loss of semantic content Meplicates deviated norms5 Mespect for the form of the loyalty to S$ a#thor. S-, b#t overridin& loyalty to $- norms. 0ore comple(, a161ard, Smoother, simpler, clearer, detailed5 tendency to over more direct5 tendency to translate. #nder translate. 8or serio#s literat#re, 8or the vast ma;ority a#tobio&raphy, effusion, political statement. any (or personal of te(ts, e.&. non X literary important 1ritin&, technical and other) informative te(ts, p#blicity, standardi?ed types, pop#lar fiction. (cf. 0#nday 2771+!D)

>.1.>. J. Ho#se opposed covert and overt translations. Ho#se insisted on 9ho1 m#ch the forei&n te(t depends on its o1n c#lt#re for intelli&ibility. 4f the si&nificance of a forei&n te(t is pec#liarly indi&eno#s, it re.#ires a translation that is overt or noticeable thro#&h its reliance on s#pplementary information, 1hether in the form of e(pansions, insertions or annotations: (Ho#se 1977+ 2!). $hese pairs of terms are based on the traditional dichotomies bet1een sense%for% sense and 1ord%for%1ord translations and sho1 different p#rposes and effects of >7

translation. $herefore, pra&matic e.#ivalence and formal e.#ivalence are at the e(treme ends. $he former ma6es the translator invisible and the translated te(t easily #nderstood by the receptors, 1hereas the latter 6eeps the translator visible stic6in& to the lin&#istic and c#lt#ral val#es of the forei&n te(t. /ccordin& to Ho#se (1977), most models in translation st#dies are based on the pra&matic theories of lan&#a&e #se. $hey foc#s on the analysis of the lin&#istic and c#lt#ral characteristics of the so#rce te(t and tar&et te(t, on the comparison bet1een them and on their relative match or mismatch. $he condition that the function of the $$ sho#ld be the same as the f#nction of the S$ is prevailin&. 4n this respect, the $$ f#nction is achieved by #sin& e.#ivalent pra&matic means. =esides the lin&#istic sit#ational dimensions of the S$ 1hich have to be rendered in the $$, te(t typolo&y is very closely connected 1ith the S$ f#nction, the essential condition bein& that the $$ sho#ld match the S$ f#nction. 8#rthermore, the first mismatches bet1een the S$ and $$ incl#de mismatches of the denotative meanings of the S$ and $$ 1ords and phrases. 4n analysin& parallel corpora and ;#d&in& the f#nctional e.#ivalence bet1een the S$ and $$, the distinction bet1een overt and covert translations is #sef#l+ translation is overt 1hen the S$ is so#rce%c#lt#re lin6ed and has independent stat#s in the S- comm#nity, and covert 1hen neither condition holds. $his distinction is also necessary beca#se it is only 1ith covert translations that an e.#ivalent f#nction is achieved, #nli6e 1ith overt translations 1hich re.#ire a special second%level f#nction to achieve ade.#acy. $hat is to say, an overt version is the res#lt of addin& a special, secondary f#nction to the $$. $he &reat importance of the S$ c#lt#ral dimension increases the #sef#lness and efficiency of the covert translation 1hich renders more s#btle c#lt#ral aspects, val#es and beliefs. 0oreover, the differences in c#lt#ral pres#ppositions often re.#ire the application of a <c#lt#ral filter" (Ho#se 1977+ 1B ). >.1.!. / combination of the lin&#istic and comm#nicative approaches 1as offered by 0. =a6er (1992) 1ho considered e.#ivalence at the 1ord level and above the 1ord level+ -evels of e.#ivalence+ 1ord level % direct e.#ivalents #sed for sin&le #nits (1ords)5 &rammatical level % omission or addition of information dependin& on the &rammatical r#les5 te(t level % cohesion based on the tar&et a#dience, te(t type and p#rpose5 >1implied meanin&s. pra&matic level X recreation of

 @.#ivalence at the 1ord level+ $he 1ord is the first element to be ta6en into consideration by the translator. Iords are sin&le #nits #sed to find a direct Ve.#ivalentV in the $-. / sin&le 1ord can sometimes be assi&ned different meanin&s in different lan&#a&es and mi&ht be re&arded as bein& a more comple( #nit or morpheme. $he translator sho#ld pay attention to a n#mber of factors 1hen considerin& a sin&le 1ord (e. &. n#mber, &ender, 1ith no#ns, tense 1ith verbs). Arammatical e.#ivalence+ o $he variation of &rammatical r#les across lan&#a&es may pose problems in findin& a direct correspondence in the $-. o Kifferent &rammatical str#ct#res in the S- and $- may ca#se remar6able chan&es in the 1ay the information or messa&e is rendered. o $hese chan&es may ind#ce the translator either to add or omit information in the $$ beca#se of the lac6 of partic#lar &rammatical devices in the $-. o /mon& the &rammatical devices 1hich mi&ht ca#se problems in translation =a6er (1992) foc#ses on n#mber, tense and aspect, voice, person and &ender. o $he idea of co#ntability is #niversal, b#t not all lan&#a&es have a &rammatical cate&ory of n#mber, even if they mi&ht ma6e distinctions at the le(ical level. o $he cate&ory of person relates to the notion of participant roles. 4n most lan&#a&es these roles are defined thro#&h a closed system of prono#ns. 8or e(ample, the person system of many @#ropean lan&#a&es has a politeness dimension. o /spect, tense and voice are &rammatical cate&ories 1hich brin& abo#t a lot of translation diffic#lties 1hich the translator has to overcome. $e(t#al e.#ivalence+ $e(t#re is a very important feat#re in translation since it provides #sef#l &#idelines for the comprehension and analysis of the S$. 4t helps the translator in his'her attempt to prod#ce a cohesive and coherent te(t for the $3 a#dience in a specific conte(t.

>2

4t is #p to the translator to decide 1hether or not to maintain the cohesive ties as 1ell as the coherence of the S-$. His'her decision 1ill be &#ided by three main factors+ the tar&et a#dience, the p#rpose of the translation and the te(t type. )ra&matic e.#ivalence+

o Ihen referrin& to implicat#res and strate&ies of avoidance d#rin& the translation process. o 4mplicat#re is not abo#t 1hat is e(plicitly said b#t 1hat it is implied. o $herefore, the translator needs to 1or6 o#t implied meanin&s in translation in order to &et the S$ messa&e across. o $he role of the translator is to recreate the a#thorVs intention in another c#lt#re in s#ch a 1ay that enables the $3 reader to #nderstand it clearly. (.&. Translation shifts $he concept of e.#ivalence bein& the basic one in the translation theories of this decade, it entails the shifts bet1een the S$ and the $$, deviations at the lin&#istic level, 1ith some lin&#istic cate&ories (verbs rendered by no#ns, phrases, etc.). J. 3. 3atford (19 D) &ave a thoro#&h description of the &rammatical and le(ical shifts in translation, 1hich 1ere <depart#res from formal correspondence". /. )opovi\ (1977) also insisted on shifts in translation 1hich 9do not occ#r beca#se the translator 1ishes to <chan&e" a 1or6, b#t beca#se he strives to reprod#ce it as faithf#lly as possible:, the 6ind of faithf#lness he has in mind bein& f#nctional, 1ith the translator #sin& s#itable e.#ivalents in the milie# of his time and society ()opovi\ 1977+ B7,B2, .td. in Cen#ti 2777+ 122). J. -evy (19 D) considers that pra&matic translation involves a <&rad#al semantic shiftin&" d#e to the fact that translators have to choose from many possible sol#tions. 4n his opinion, 9shifts 1or6 to &enerali?e and clarify meanin&, chan&in& the style of a literary 1or6 into a dry and #ninspirin& description of thin&s and actions (-evy 19 D+ 7B% B7, .td. in Cen#ti 2777+ 122).

>>

/ccordin& to O. Meiss (1971), the 9f#nctionally e.#ivalent translation needs to be based on a <detailed semantic, syntactic and pra&matic analysis" of the forei&n te(t: (Cen#ti 2777+ 122). =#t, as Cen#ti ar&#es, 9the pra&matic translator doesn"t simply analyse the lin&#istic and c#lt#ral feat#res of the forei&n te(t, b#t reverbali?es them accordin& to the val#es of a different lan&#a&e and c#lt#re, often applyin& 1hat Ho#se calls a <filter" to aid the receptor"s comprehension of the difference: (ibidem). $he condition 1hich the translator has to f#lfil is to &rasp and render the semantic representation of the S$. $he semantic representation is the res#lt of the three%1ay analysis, i.e. the syntactic, semantic and pra&matic information+ 1. cla#se str#ct#re+ mood and le(ical choices incl#din& le(ical meanin& and 1here any of the le(is is #ncommon, a ta& to that effect5 2. propositional content+ transitivity choices, the lo&ical relations mapped onto the syntactic str#ct#re5 >. thematic str#ct#re+ theme choices incl#din& indications of mar6edness5 !. re&ister feat#res+ tenor, mode and domain of disco#rse5 D. illoc#tionary force (derived from domain) 1hich, 1hen combined 1ith propositional content, indicates a speech act)5 . speech acts 1hich the cla#ses co#nt as5 here the simplest case is 1hen there is a one%to%one mappin& bet1een cla#se and speech act. /s it is obvio#s, most theories to date can be characteri?ed as theories of (1hat is alle&edly) the only le&itimate or &en#ine 6ind of translation (K. Kelabastita 1991+1!>). $he &en#ine concept of translation can be defined in positive terms, i.e. ,to render the S- messa&e 1ith the closest $- e.#ivalent ... is, 1e believe, the only possible 1ay leadin& to fidelity, (Shen 19B9+2>!, emphasis in the ori&inal). 4t can also be defined in ne&ative terms, i.e. ,literalism has indeed little claim to theoretical validity as an approach to ,total translation, (Shen 19B9+22!). 3onse.#ently, some recent theories allo1 &reater fle(ibility, and accept variations in the techni.#es of ideal translation accordin& to concrete circ#mstances and comm#nicative re.#irements. 8or e(ample, translation is seen as an act of comm#nication across c#lt#ral bo#ndaries, the main criteria bein& determined by the recipient of the translation and its specific f#nction (Snell%Hornby 19BB+!7). No1 the translational relationships bet1een the S$ and $$ are replaced by net1or6s of relationships and concepts of interte(t#ality ($o#ry 19B 5 -ambert 19B95 @. Aent?ler 199>).

>!

(.(. E+%i)alence$6ase' )ie s on translation $he conception that translation as the mere renderin& of a so#rce lan&#a&e te(t (S-$) into a tar&et lan&#a&e te(t ($-$), so as to ens#re that the s#rface meanin& of the t1o 1ill be appro(imately similar, is a restricted one. o $he same holds tr#e concernin& the idea that the str#ct#res of the S$ 1ill be preserved as closely as possible provided they do not affect the $$ str#ct#res, beca#se this conception lays stress #pon the syntactic system only5 this conception is also a restricted one. o $ranslation is not a secondary, or a mechanical, b#t a creative process. $he contemporary translation st#dies are very m#ch concerned 1ith the prod#ct% oriented, as 1ell as f#nction%oriented and process%oriented descriptions of translation. $hat is, they are concerned 1ith a te(t%foc#ssed description of translation, 1ith the c#lt#ral component affectin& the reception of the $$ and 1ith 1hat is &oin& on in the translatorVs mind, respectively. $ranslation is a comple( tas6, involvin& a &reat deal of s6ill, preparation, 6no1led&e and int#itive feelin& for te(ts. @verythin& can be translated, b#t this is possible only thro#&h hard 1or6, added to the translatorVs talent, 6no1led&e, int#itive feelin& for te(ts and ,co&nitive complements,. $he idea related to the ,no loss, no &ain, principle is that if any losses occ#r they m#st be ,made #p for,, th#s re;ectin& t1o opposite theses, i.e. the impossibility of translation and absol#te translability. $he c#lt#ral element m#st be ta6en into consideration 1henever 1e appreciate the choices made in any sit#ation of translation and 1hen 1e propose o#r o1n choices. $he c#lt#ral element is central to a theory of translation. $ranslation involves selectin& the appropriate terms in 6eepin& 1ith the lin&#istic and c#lt#ral conte(t. / faithf#l translation is the one &#ided by the translation%oriented te(t analysis 1hich has to meet the same re.#irements, str#ct#res, patterns and pec#liarities to 1hich the a#thor himself s#bmitted in creatin& the ori&inal. o $he different translations of the same S$ lar&ely depend #pon the initial choices made by the translator. o $he translator, i.e. translation operator ($2), is a mediator bet1een t1o different lan&#a&e comm#nities, bet1een t1o interc#lt#ral sit#ations of comm#nication. o $he translator m#st have syntactic, semantic and c#lt#ral 6no1led&e. $h#s, he needs bilin&#al and bic#lt#ral competence. >D

o $he $2Vs competence is his ability to analyse, compare and convert t1o c#lt#ral systems, respectin& both the conflictin& forces 1ithin one lan&#a&e c#lt#re (-3), and the interplay of these forces as the -3 s are bro#&ht into contact. $he 1or6 of the translator consists of+ an analysis (the interpretation act), a transformation, and a ,polishin&, act (i.e. the final prod#ction). $he translatin& process involves the steps and sta&es thro#&h 1hich the translator 1or6s 1hile the S$ is transformed into the $$. $h#s, translation is a comple( set of translational relations in any &iven sit#ation.

(.*. E+%i)alence# lang%age %se an' speech co""%nities. (.*.1. Lang%age %se an' speech co""%nit,. -an&#a&e #se is disc#ssed in connection 1ith a speech community. )eople belon&in& to a speech comm#nity establish norms abo#t #ses of lan&#a&e. / speech comm#nity is 9a comm#nity sharin& 6no1led&e of r#les for the cond#ct and interpretation of speech. S#ch sharin& comprises 6no1led&e of at least one form of speech, and 6no1led&e also of its patterns of #se: (Hymes 197!+ D1). Ho1ever, this does not mean that a speech comm#nity is limited to a &ro#p of spea6ers #sin& the same forms. 4t is related to norms as re&ards lan&#a&e, social attit#des to1ards lan&#a&e. 4n -abov" s opinion , a speech comm#nity is 9best defined as a &ro#p 1ho share the same norms in re&ard to lan&#a&e FGH 1ho share a set of social attit#des to1ards lan&#a&e: (-abov 1972+ 2!B). 8#rthermore, considerin& the fact that 1ithin a speech comm#nity people act#ally interact, the concept of speech net"or. 1as developed by -. 0ilroy and J. 0ilroy (197B). -an&#a&e #se is eval#ated 1ithin speech comm#nities and net1or6s, either dense or 1ea6 (0ilroy and 0ilroy 1992+ 1>), since they 9reveal social and c#lt#ral beliefs abo#t ho1 society is str#ct#red and the 1ays that people are e(pected to act or interact: (=onvillain 277>+ >). $herefore, cultural models are #sed to e(ert press#res for conformity on both conscio#s and nonconscio#s levels. / cultural model is a constr#ction of reality that is created, shared and transmitted by members of a &ro#p (=onvillain 277>+ 2). 4t is #sed to &#ide and eval#ate people"s behavio#r. 3#lt#ral models are shared and accepted by people belon&in& to a comm#nity. -an&#a&e #se e(presses #nderlyin& c#lt#ral models, differences in terms of stat#s in society, distinctions of class, race, a&e, &ender, etc. /s =onvillain p#ts it, 9/ltho#&h people 1ithin a &iven c#lt#re share many ass#mptions abo#t the 1orld, they are not a completely homo&eneo#s &ro#p. )eople are >

differentiated on the basis of &ender, a&e and stat#s in all societies. 4n addition, distinctions of class, race, and ethnicity are #sed to se&ment pop#lations in most modern nations. /ll these factors contrib#te to diversity in comm#nicative behavio#r and to disparities in eval#ations &iven to the behavio#r of different &ro#ps of people: (ibid). 8#rthermore, specific behavio#r 1ithin one area of life may differ. Ho1ever, 9the ran&e of common h#man e(perience is s#fficiently similar to provide a basis for m#t#al #nderstandin&. 3ertainly, the similarities that #nite man6ind as a c#lt#ral <species" are m#ch &reater than the differences that separate: (Nida 19 !+ DD). )eople are able to ad;#st to the dialect of others, to reco&ni?e other <to6ens" of behavio#r and to ad;#st to s#ch to6ens as an or&ani?ed system. /ll this 1ill help them reinterpret e(perience in terms of some other concept#al frame1or6. $his also holds valid in translation &iven the fact that 9a hi&h de&ree of effective comm#nication is possible amon& other peoples beca#se of the similarity of mental processes, ran&e of c#lt#ral e(perience and capacity for ad;#stment to the behavio#r patterns of others: (id. ibid.). $he t1o different b#t compatible approaches in the st#dies of lan&#a&e, c#lt#re and comm#nication, i.e. the ethnolinguistic approach and the sociolinguistic approach offer a &ood frame1or6 for all these aspects $he ethnolin&#istic approach is concerned 1ith analysis of conte(ts, norms of appropriateness, and 6no1led&e of lan&#a&e #se. 9/nalyses of these facets of comm#nicative behavio#r reveal #nderlyin& c#lt#ral models and demonstrate the co&nitive and concept#al bonds that #nify people 1ithin their c#lt#re: (=onvillain 277>+ !). $his approach ma6es #se of anthropolo&ical techni.#es to &ather data from observin& individ#al native spea6ers and st#dyin& specific cate&ories of vocab#lary and types of &rammatical constr#ctions. $he sociolin&#istic approach is based on the dynamic connection bet1een lan&#a&e and social factors. 4n other 1ords, it is concerned 1ith st#dyin& patterns of lin&#istic variation. 4t is a 1ell%6no1n fact that differences in speech sit#ations and social distinctions 1ithin a comm#nity &enerate variation in lan&#a&e #se. $he social differences are amon& the factors that mar6 the lin&#istic differences. )eople belon&in& to a speech comm#nity ma6e #se of the options available in that comm#nity, i.e. specific vocab#lary, certain types of &rammatical constr#ctions or sentences, etc. / spea6er"s choices in speech style are closely related to his identity. /ccordin& to =onvillain, 94n some c#lt#res, the style of speech #sed in different conte(ts are sharply distin&#ished, 1hereas in others, lin&#istic styles are less differentiated. @ven 1ithin a c#lt#re, some people are more sensitive than others to conte(t#al c#es and ad;#st their speech accordin&ly. Sensitivity to conte(t may be related to s#ch social factors as

>7

&ender or class, or it may be related to an individ#al"s participation in many different types of sit#ations (=onvillain 277>+ D). $he fact sho#ld be also considered that lan&#a&e operates by 9descriptive &enerali?ation: (-eech 19B>+ 1>B). $he three degrees of generali$ation have to be mentioned+ h#man behavio#r, lin&#istic behavio#r and social behavio#r. 4n this respect, -eech #ses the term descriptive delicacy and institutional delicacy. $he latter type relates lin&#istic behavio#r to other forms of social behavio#r and to the individ#als and comm#nities. /ccordin& to -eech, there are t1o scales of instit#tional delicacy+ the register scale, 1hich handles social roles of lin&#istic activity, and the dialect scale, 1hich is related to 9the lin&#istic habits of vario#s sections of the society, differentiated by a&e, social class, se( and &eo&raphical area: (id. ibid.). =oth the register scale and the dialect scale have to be ta6en into acco#nt in translatin& literary te(ts since 9they reflect the nat#re of lan&#a&e itself: (ibid+ 1>9). $he term dialect is 91. a re&ional or social variety of a lan&#a&e distin&#ished by pron#nciation, &rammar or vocab#lary, especially a variety of speech differin& from the standard literary lan&#a&e or speech pattern of the c#lt#re in 1hich it e(ists . 2. a variety of lan&#a&e that 1ith other varieties constit#te a sin&le lan&#a&e of 1hich no sin&le variety is standard: (K@- 2777). $he technical term #sed to refer to the variety of lan&#a&e spo6en by an individ#al is idiolect. 4t is &enerally a&reed that a lan&#a&e is a collection of dialects. $he feat#res of dialects as varieties of lan&#a&e, &eo&raphically defined, intelli&ible, b#t distinct phonolo&ically, semantically and morpholo&ically are very important in translatin& literary te(ts. Ho1ever, distinction sho#ld be made bet1een 9mainstream: dialect and 9vernac#lar: dialect (non%standard). $he fact sho#ld also be mentioned that spea6ers of the same dialects #se different styles 1ith different a#diences. Kialect corpora allo1 the st#dy of vocab#lary and pron#nciation 1itho#t ne&lectin& the other aspects of lin&#istics. (.*.&. Lang%age %se an' e+%i)alence in translation. $ranslation is closely related to the c#lt#re%bo#nd eval#ations 1hich cannot be made, as it happens 1ith the f#nctionalist approach, only 1ithin the conte(t of one partic#lar c#lt#re. 8#rthermore, a &eneral frame1or6 of c#lt#re is needed 1hich has to be provided by &enerali?ed models of c#lt#re. $his

>B

vie1 is specific to the co&nitive approach 1hich 1e share to a certain e(tent since the ob;ection that can be set forth is that these models 9treat c#lt#re as a fro?en state:. 4n this respect, 1e a&ree 1ith Oatan (277!+ >9) that they 9also s#&&est that mediation bet1een c#lt#res is relatively strai&htfor1ard:. 0oreover, the idea is &enerally set forth that a &ood translation conveys the meanin&, style and tone of the so#rce te(t as closely as possible. Nevertheless, these re.#irements cannot al1ays be met. Ie a&ree 1ith Koller#p that 9none of #s is completely familiar 1ith all places, even in o#r o1n co#ntries. None of #s 6no1s all the social c#lt#res and s#bc#lt#res of o#r co#ntry.FGH Ie all spea6 o#r idiolects s#bs#med to o#r sociolects, and perhaps even dialects. Ie cannot 6no1, let alone be familiar 1ith, all <styles" and <tones" in o#r societies: (Koller#p 277 + D7). 4n o#r research, 1e considered the relevance of all these aspects in translatin& literary te(ts, since the main &oal in translation is for many of the s#btleties to be #nderstood and appreciated by the tar&et readers ($Ms) of different re&ions in order to catch the so%1idely debated <flavo#r" of the ori&inal. $hese aspects are also relevant in analy?in& parallel and comparative corpora. 2#r choice 1as to analyse t1o parallel corpora+ 5mintiri din copil:rie 1ritten by one of o#r representative 1riters, 4on 3rean&U and its @n&lish version ;emories of ;y <oyhood translated by /na 3artian# and M.3. Johnston. 4n translatin& 4on 3rean&U"s 5mintiri din copil:rie, /na 3artian# and M.3. Johnston tried to reprod#ce the flavo#r of the ori&inal, its very special atmosphere. $he lan&#a&e 1as most diffic#lt to render, from a balanced mi(t#re of older and modern Momanian to appro(imate <e.#ivalents" of old, even modern 1ords and e(pressions. 2ne of the &reatest diffic#lties that 1ere to be overcome by the translators is the fact that in many sit#ations the characters spea6 the 0oldavian dialect 1ith lo1er class deviations. Ihen &oin& thro#&h s#ch a translation e(perience, the translator"s tas6 is very diffic#lt+ (s)he has to find sol#tions to help the $Ms feel the to#ch of the local dialect and <smell" the accent, the psycholo&y and the 1hole atmosphere, altho#&h there are lots of 1ords, phrases and str#ct#res 1hich cannot be rendered in the tar&et lan&#a&e c#lt#re ($-3).Sometimes it is as impossible for the translator to render a 1ord , a phrase or a str#ct#re e(actly in the tar&et lan&#a&e ($-) as it is for the $Ms to <smell" the flavour of the ori&inal. 3onsider, for e(ample, the follo1in& e(cerpt+ ST1+ =i, lu>ndu-mi r:mas bun de la p:rin?i, am purces cu bunicul spre Pipirig# =i era un puiu de ger @n diminea?a aceea, de crpau lemneleA =i din sus de 0>n:tori, cum treceam puntea peste

>9

apa )eam?ului, bunicul @n urm:, cu caii de c:p:stru, Bi eu @nainte, mi-au lunecat ciubotele Bi am c:$ut @n C$an: ct mi i!i bietulA )oroc de buniculA D"i scroambele iste a voastre #s pocite &, $ise el sco?>ndu-m: repede, murat pn la pele Bi @nghe?at ht bine, c:ci nboise apa #n toate pr ile! Bi iute mi-a scos ciubotele din picioare, c: se fcuse bocn# D$pinca-i bun:, s:racaA @?i %ede piciorul hodinit, Bi la ger hu&ure%ti cu dnsa&# "i pn a vorbit aceste, eram Bi #nvlit #ntr! o saric ghi oas de 7aBina, bgat #ntr!o desag pe cal, purces pe drum, Bi hai la Pipirig (p. 2 ). TT1+ Ta.ing leave of my parents, 6 proceeded "ith Erandfather on my "ay to Pipirig# There "as a bit of a frost that morning sharp enough to split wood # 5nd 'ust above 0>n:tori, as "e "ere crossing the bridge over a tributary of the Fiver )eam? Erandfather "al.ing behind holding the horses' bridles, myself "al.ing in front of him, my boots slipped and 6 fell full length into the C$anaA Than. Eod, Erandfather "as thereA & (ow) those worn!out boots of *ours are 'ust too sill* ,& he said, %uic.ly lifting me out of the "ater, soa+ed to the s+in and fro$en to the bone , for "ater had lea+ed in ever*where # Ge ,uic+l* too. off my shoes , "hich "ere fro&en stiff # & - good oldfashioned wrap!around boot's the thingA Hour foot feels comfortable in it and "hen it's frosty you're as snug as can be#& .n the time it too+ to sa* this 6 found myself already wrapped up in a fluff* shepherd/s coat from 7asina, crammed into a bag on horsebac., on and awa* to Pipirig (p. 27). 4n addition, a lot of lin&#istic inventions and ne1 coina&es may occ#r in the tar&et te(t ($$). $heir occ#rrence is acco#nted for by the so%called non%e.#ivalence sit#ations, i.e. the lac6 of a correspondin& lin&#istic str#ct#re or reality in the $-3. 4n s#ch sit#ations, the translator ma6es an effort to invent a $- <e.#ivalent", findin& a satisfactory $- e(pression ade%uate in the conte(t. 3onsider the e(cerpt belo1+ ST&+ =i dup: ce ne culcam cu to?ii, noi, b:ie?ii, ca b:ie?ii, ne luam la hr'oan, Bi nu puteam adormi de incuri, p:n: ce era nevoit: biata mam: s ne fac musai cte!un %urub) dou prin cap Bi s ne deie cteva tapangele la spinare# =i tata, s:tur>ndu-se c>teodat: de at>ta hlgie, $icea mamei:

!7

- Ei, taci, taciA aIung:-?i de!amu, herghelieA =tiu c: doar nu-s babe, s chiroteasc din picioare# Jns: mama ne mai da atunci cteva pe deasupra) %i mai #ndesate, $ic>nd: - (a!v de cheltuial, ghiavoli ce sunte?iA )ici noaptea s: nu m: pot hodini de incotele voastreK (p. !7) TT&+ 2hen "e had all gone to bed, children "ill be children, "e' d start fighting and "ouldn't sleep for giggling and tittering till ;other, poor dear, must needs pull our hair and give us a few thumps in the bac+, and 4ather, having had enough of such a row, "ould sometimes say to ;other: '7ome, come, shut upA That's enough slapping and scolding# They're not old "omen "ho go to sleep standing up#9 <ut ;other "ould then give us a few more thumps, saying: 'Ta+e that and behave *ourselves , you devilsA 6 can't even rest at night because of your giggling#9 (p. !1) $he translator may often happen to moderni?e and domesticate a so#rce te(t (S$) 1ord or e(pression 1hich 1ill f#nction semantically in the same 1ay, b#t 1hich 1ill not be s#&&estive of the ori&inal atmosphere. 3onsider the follo1in& e(cerpt+ ST(+ 5tunci, noi, la fug, b:ie?i, mai dihai dect la popa CslobanuL'Mar bun pocinog a mai fost %!aista, $iceam noi oprindu-ne la rscrucile drumului din miIlocul satului, aproape de biseric:# Jnc: una-dou: de aiestea Bi ne scot oamenii afar: din sat ca pe niBte liesiL =i dup: ce ne arvonim noi Bi pe la anul, cu Iur:m>nt, s umblm tot @mpreun:, ne-am desp:r?it unul de altul, rbegi i de frig si hmesi i de foame, Bi hai fiecare pe la casa cui ne are) c mai bine!i pare# =i iaca a%a ne!a fost umblarea cu plugul @n anul acela (p !!). TT(+ )o", run for it, boys, ,uic+er than we ran from 0arson CslobanuA '5 fine mess, "e ponder, stopping at the crossroads in the middle of the village, close by the church# Cne or t"o more welcomes li+e that and "eNll be driven out from the village li.e g*psiesL Gaving settled things for the follo"ing years and s"orn a solemn oath to go carolling together "e parted, stiff with cold and wea+ "ith hunger and off "e each went to our own homes and might* glad we were to see them# 5nd that/s the stor* of our carol!singing that yearA (p. !D).

!1

/ translation loss is #navoidable 1ith vernac#lar 1ords (no#ns, verbs, adverbs, etc.) and e(pressions, i.e. local dialect, slan& e(pressions or &en#ine indi&eno#s 1ords and e(pressions s#ch as+ ne luam la h>rIoan:, incuri, musai, s: ne fac: c>te-un Burub, dou: prin cap, s: ne deie c>teva tapangele la spinare, h:l:gie, de-amu, herghelie, s: chiroteasc:, ne maid a c>teva pe deasupra, na-v: de cheltuial:, ghiavoli, incote. Iith s#ch 1ords and e(pressions, the translator has to find a dialect e.#ivalent, or a common approximate correspondence in the $-+ "e' d start fighting, giggling and tittering, pull our hair, give us a fe" thumps in the bac., ro", enough slapping and scolding, go to sleep, give us a fe" more thumps, ta.e that and behave yourselves, devils, giggling. 4t is obvio#s that the dialect e(pressive 1ords and phrases are missed. $h#s, there is al1ays a loss in translation, especially 1ith vernac#lar lan&#a&e. Cernac#lar e(pressions are #s#ally #nderstood by readers from the same area. 0oreover, s#btleties are appreciated only by s#ch readers. Nevertheless, the translator"s competence of ne&otiatin& bet1een the t1o lan&#a&es and c#lt#res helps the readers of a different re&ion, i.e. the $Ms, catch at least a certain re&ional flavo#r. Sometimes these e(pressions are immediately translated or ne1 coina&es are tried+ #sin& the ori&inal e(pression by adaptin& its phonetic characteristics. $herefore, 1hatever the translation strate&y may be, the vernac#lar tone has to be preserved. 8#rthermore, if the means of e(pression are different, they have to be someho1 reinforced. $his is beca#se the s#bstance of the te(t#al content and the s#bstance of e(pression are of #tmost importance. 4n this respect, @co"s definitions of te(t and translation are 1orth mentionin&+ 9(i) a te(t is the manifestation of a s#bstance, either at the content or at the e(pression plane, and (ii) translation is not only concerned 1ith s#ch matters as <e.#ivalence" in meanin& (or in the s#bstance of the te(t#al content), it is also concerned 1ith the more or less indispensable Oe%uivalencesN in the substance of expression: (@co 277>+ >7, o#r emphasis). 4t is a 1ell 6no1n fact that literary 1or6s have more than one level of meanin&+ one overt level and one or more covert levels. $his is related to the e(tended meanin&s of a 1ord. S#ch an analysis implicitly incl#des the concept of focal meaning. $he concept of focal meanin& has become relevant in ethnolin&#istic st#dies. 9$he focal meanin& of a 1ord is its central sense 1ithin the 1hole ran&e of meanin&s that it has: (=onvillain 277>+ D9).

!2

4n translation, there are t1o semantic systems that select the content in a different 1ay, since each lan&#a&e c#lt#re or&ani?es its systems by isolatin& differences 1hich are i&nored in another lan&#a&e c#lt#re. $he e(cerpt belo1 is ill#strative of the vario#s e(tensions of meanin& of the verb run 1hich are part and parcel of the semantics of this verb. $hese e(tensions of the meanin&s of run are based on feat#res reco&ni?ed by the people belon&in& to the speech comm#nity in the &eo&raphical area of 0oldavia. /s Nida (19 !+ 9!) p#t it, 9not all societies or speech comm#nities ma6e the same e(tensions:. $his is obvio#s 1hen comparin& the S$ 1ith the $$+ ST*0 =i nebuna de m:tuBa ;:rioara, dup mine, Bi eu fuga iepure%te prin c>nep:, Bi ea pe urma mea, p:n: la gardul din fundul gr:dinei, pe care neav>nd vreme s:-l sar, o cotigeam @napoi, iar prin c>nep:, fugind tot iepure%te, Bi ea dup mine p:n:-n dreptul ocolului pe undemi era iar greu de s:rit! pe de laturi iar gard, Bi h>rsita de m:tuBa nu m las din fug nici @n ruptul capuluiA 7>t pe ce s: puie m>na pe mineA "i eu fuga) %i ea fuga) %i eu fuga) %i ea fuga, p:n: ce d:m c>nepa toat: palanc: la p:m>nt PLQ (p. !B). TT*0 That cra$y 5unt ;arioara rushed after me, and 6 ran li+e a hare across the field of hemp with her on m* heels to the fence at the bottom of the garden, but 6'd no time to get over it, so bac. * turned, still across the hemp field, still running li+e a hare, "ith my aunt on m* trac+s, bac. to the cattle yard, "here again it "as difficult to Iump out, for there "ere fences every"here along both sides and that s.inflint of an aunt would not stop chasing me for the life of herA She very nearly laid hands on meA . went on running and she went on chasing) and bet"een us "e trod the "hole field of hemp flat PLQ (p. !9). $he notion of referential e.#ivalence is also do#bted 1hen comparin& the Momanian verb a alerga and its synonyms 1ith the concept of <approximationsN in the @n&lish version. $h#s, it is clear that the translator has to 6no1 ho1 the $Ms cate&orise thin&s, actions or events. $hat is 1hy Koller#p prefers the approximation to Nida" s and Ne1mar6" s concept of e.#ivalence 1hich he considers not to be clear. 8#rthermore, 9this, in t#rn, allo1s for the #se of < ade%uacyN as a criterion as to 1hether #sers find a translation acceptable or not: (Koller#p 277 + D>).

!>

$he meanin&s of run are combinations of the verb run and the conte(t. $he differences in meanin& sho1 that the role of the conte(t is essential. $he combined meanin&s of the verb run and the conte(t is the basis for the relevant concept. $herefore, the concept#al meanin& of a le(ical item is 9a combined meanin& of the 1ord or idiom and the conte(t. $he relevant level of semantic analysis is therefore the 1ord or idiom in conte(t: (Nida 199 + BB). $here are sit#ations 1here the translators, bein& very m#ch concerned 1ith the response of the $Ms, had to be #nfaithf#l to the content of the ori&inal messa&e. $here are also mismatches made 1ith the translators" eyes 1ide open, not o#t of i&norance, oversi&ht or fail#re in comprehendin& the ori&inal, b#t d#e to the le(ical and &rammatical none.#ivalence and to the lac6 of the c#lt#ral correspondin& realities (see the e(cerpts above). $he main concl#sion that can be dra1n is that there is al1ays some loss in translation beca#se t1o lan&#a&es, especially t1o very different ones, represent the same reality in different 1ays and only to a certain e(tent. $his is d#e to the fact that 9effective comm#nication does not res#lt from the lin&#istic element alone, as in a 1ider settin& no t1o lan&#a&es can ever f#lly represent the same reality, 1hether that reality may be material, social, ecolo&ical or reli&io#s: (=alli# .td. in Nida 199 + 27). 3onse.#ently, translation is al1ays a shift, not bet1een t1o lan&#a&es, b#t bet1een t1o c#lt#res.

(.1. Non$e+%i)alence sit%ations

$he total c%lt%ral setting of the a#thor"s time and #niverse is different. $he correspondin& 1ords, or phrases may not be satisfactor,. $he for" of the 1ord(s) may be conf#sin&+ there are lots of conf%sa6les# or tro%6leso"e or's 1hich are real translation traps. $he semantic content may not be rendered in the $$ entirely5 as a conse.#ence, the se"antic loss occ#rs. $he stylistic effect, the satire and the irony of the S$ may be missed. $here is no correspon'ing or' or phrase in the $-3+ e.&. drama translation5 1hen the play is acted+ the reactions of the a#dience are m#ch more important than the tar&et readers ($Ms) of the respective play. $he lac6 of the correspondin& realities in -32 may ca#se the c%lt%ral Bgap>.

!!

 $here may be vario#s de&rees of the TT accepta6ilit, in the $-3 (d#e to the ne1 information and forms). $here may be vario#s de&rees of a'e+%ac, of the S$ in the $-3 (d#e to the chan&es of the S$ str#ct#res bro#&ht abo#t by the lin&#istic and c#lt#ral norms). No translation is entirely acceptable in the $-3 beca#se of its estran&in& str#ct#ral and verbal elements. No translation is entirely ade.#ate to the S$ beca#se of the ne1 c#lt#ral conte(t it 1ill belon& to. $he translator is a "e'iator 1ho has to solve the non%e.#ivalence sit#ations and ma6e the $$ fl%ent# rea'a6le an' accepta6le in the $-3. (.1.1. T,pes of non$e+%i)alence >.D.1.1. $he S- concept is not le!icali<e' in the TL. $he S- 1ord e(presses a concept 1hich is 6no1n in the $3 b#t is not le(icali?ed + e. &. savoury % tasty5 pleasant smellin&5 (fi&.) a&reeable, &ood standard X ordinary landslide X over1helmin& ma;ority >.D.1.2. $he c%lt%ral ele"ents specific to the SL cannot be rendered in the $- beca#se there are no correspon'ing realities in the TLC. $he S- 1ord e(presses a concept 1hich is #n6no1n in the $-35 it may refer to a social c#stom, a reli&io#s belief, an abstraction, an ob;ect, or a type of food+ e. &. privacy 8 loneliness5 intimacy airing cupboard >.D.1.>. $he S- 1ord is se"anticall, co"ple!. / sin&le 1ord consistin& of a sin&le morpheme may e(press a more comple( set of meanin&s+ e.&. polysemy of 1ords cunning, sly (Biret), artful, shre"d, sharp (viclean), mischievous (Btrengar)5 smart (deBtept, iste?), s.illful (@ndem>natic, priceput, iscusit)5 ellegant (elegant, atr:g:tor) >.D.1.!. S- and $- ma6e 'ifferent 'istinctions in meanin&. $he $- ma6es more or fe1er distinctions in meanin& than the S-. Ihat is relevant in meanin& to the S- may not be so in the $-. e.&. come X go

!D

bring 8 fetch >.D.1.D. $here is no s%peror'inate in the $-. $he $- lac6s a s#perordinate tho#&h it has specific 1ords (hyponyms)+ e.&. facilities X any e.#ipment, b#ildin&, services provided for a partic#lar activity or p#rpose >.D.1. . $here is no TL h,pon," (specific term). $he $- lac6s the specific 1ord for the S- s#perordinate+ e.&. s#perordinate+ house specific 1ords+ bungalo", cottage, chalet, lodge, hut, mansion, manor, villa, hall s#perordinate+ Iump specific 1ords+ leap, vault, spring, bounce, dive, clear, plunge >.D.1.7. $he S- interpersonal perspecti)e is different from that of the $-. $here are differences in physical or interpersonal perspective 1hen persons or thin&s are in relation to one another or to a place+ e.&. come 8 go arrive 8 depart ta.e 8 bring the Momanian e.#ivalents for give >.D.1.B. $here are 'ifferences in e!pressi)e "eaning. S#ch differences may represent translation traps. / $- 1ord has the same propositional meanin& as the S- 1ord, b#t it has a different e(pressive meanin&. Ihen the $- 1ord is ne#tral, the translator may add a modifier or an adverb to ma6e #p for the e(pressive meanin& of the S- 1ord. e.&. batter X to beat sava&ely ' r#thlessly >.D.1.9. $here are 'ifferences in for" 1hich are a real so#rce of conf#sions. $here are lots of s#ch conf%sa6le or tro%6leso"e or's (see sect. >.D. 7onfusables as translation traps # $here is no e.#ivalent in the $- for a partic#lar form in the S$+ e.&. employer ( employee trainer ( trainee

payer ( payee conceivable retrievable undeniable drin.able >.D.1.17. Affi!es may ca#se sit#ations of non%e.#ivalence. /ffi(es 1hich contrib#te to evo6ed meanin& (e.&. by creatin& b#?? 1ords s#ch as "ashateria, groceteria) and those 1hich convey e(pressive meanin& (Iournalese, translationese, legalese) are more diffic#lt to translate by a paraphrase (=a6er 1992+ 2!).

>.D.1.11. The paraphrase of all t,pes of "eaning, e(cept for the propositional meanin&, is not al1ays possible. 94t is relatively easy to paraphrase propositional meanin&, b#t other types of meanin& cannot al1ays be spelt o#t in translation. $heir s#btle contrib#tion to the overall meanin& of the te(t is either lost alto&ether or reco)ere' else here 6, "eans of co"pensator, techni+%es.: (=a6er 1992+ 2!, emphasis added). >.D.1.12. $he fre+%enc, an' p%rpose of %sing specific for"s are different in the $-. $here is an e.#ivalent in the $-, b#t there are differences in its fre.#ency or in the p#rpose for 1hich it is #sed + e.&. the #se of Xin& to bind cla#ses >.D.1.1>. 4t is very diffic#lt to find a loan or' in the TL ith the sa"e "eaning of the loan 1ord #sed in the S$. -oan 1ords are #sed for their presti&e val#e. 4t is not al1ays possible to find a loan 1ord in the $- 1ith the same meanin& (e.&. dilettante). 4f there is an e.#ivalent, it may miss the stylistic effect. 8alse friends, i.e. 1ords 1ith the same form in t1o or more lan&#a&es b#t 1ith a different meanin& , may be relevant for this type of non%e.#ivalence.

!7

(.2. Conf%sa6les as translation traps

=esides the lar&e n#mber of traps in the @n&lish lan&#a&e into 1hich the natives themselves may often fall, there are lots of traps in translatin& from @n&lish into Momanian, or viceversa. 3onf#sables, or tro#blesome 1ords, the res#lts of polysemy and homonymy, ca#se &reat problems in translation, bein& the so#rce of many misinterpretations and translation errors. Sometimes the difference(s) bet1een conf#sables may be e(plained only in terms of collocability. $heir meanin& becomes clear only in collocations. 4n this respect, an e(ample may be the pair of conf#sable ad;ectives distressful) distressing: e.&. 'istressf%l circ%"stances (involvin& stress) and distressing ne"s (ca#sin& stress). $he same may hold valid 1ith the pair of ad;ectives disordered, disorderl* #sed 1ith the meanin& nearanIat( @n de$ordine and de$ordonat, respectively+ e.&. a 'isor'ere' shelf# a 'isor'erl, roo"Ccro '. 0oreover, they can be incl#ded in the cate&ory of false friends. 8#rthermore, a series of conf#sables s#ch as discord# discordance) discordanc* may be translation traps beca#se the differences in their meanin&s are diffic#lt to perceive, and in monolin&#al dictionaries each of them is e(plained by #sin& the other t1o. $h#s, it is in a collocation s#ch as "artial 'iscor' that the meanin& of discord de?acord is #nderstood as lac6 of harmony lipsU de armonie. $he other t1o 1ords are specific to /m.@. 4n addition, the no#n 'iscor'ance seems to be #s#ally employed in the sin&#lar 1ith the meanin& of &eneral discord, i.e. difference of opinions, 1hereas the no#n 'iscor'anc, seems to be fre.#ently employed 1ith its pl#ral form meanin& controversies and involvin& repeatedness. 2n the other hand, there are three @n&lish no#ns #sed for the Momanian no#n Dntrer%pere0 'iscontin%ance# 'iscontin%ation# 'iscontin%it,. $he first is #sed 1ith the meanin& cessation (]ntrer#pere, ]ncetare)+ e.&. 6%siness 'iscontin%ance. $he second and the third are #sed in /merican @n&lish. $he no#n 'iscontin%ation is related to a breach in one"s activity+ e.&. 'iscontin%ation of or-# 1hereas 'iscontin%it, refers to some &ap or brea6 in somethin& (s#rface)+ e.&. "aEor 'iscontin%ities on the s#rface of the moon. 4n addition, there are a lot of pairs and &ro#ps of 1ords 1hich are easily conf#sed both by natives and by translators beca#se their forms are misleadin&. $hese conf%sion$generating for"s may be considered at the phonolo&ical level, on the one hand, and at the morpholo&ical level, on the other. 0orpholo&ically, there are differences bet1een past participle forms s#ch as certifie' $ certificate'# pac-age' $ pac-e'# not to mention the basic differences bet1een s#ch forms as 'r%n4'r%n-en# or s%n-$s%n-en. $hey are #s#ally pointed o#t 1hen disc#ssin& the differences bet1een pairs or &ro#ps s#ch as gol'$gol'en# rot$rotten# oo' 4 oo'e' 4 oo'en, and ool$ oolen$ oll,. 8rom a different perspective, one cannot i&nore the other meanin&s of the 1ord fl,. $h#s, it may seem very interestin& to consider the polysemy of fl,# especially its fi&#rative meanin&s in idiomatic phrases s#ch as fl, on the heelF&G <a person 1ho overestimates their infl#ence", fl, on the allF(G <an #nnoticed observer of a partic#lar sit#ation", or in idiomatic collocations s#ch as a fl, in the oint"entF*G <a minor irritation spoilin& one"s en;oyment of somethin&" and fl, in a"6er <a c#rio#s relic of the past"FDH. 4n addition to the denotative meanin&s of the verb fl,# its fi&#rative meanin&s are also obvio#s in s#ch phrases as fl, a -iteF H <try somethin& o#t in order to test opinions" a sonda teren#l, a

!B

]ncerca sU vadU de #nde bate v]nt#lF7H, fl, off the han'le (fam)."lose one"s temper #ne(pectedly" a%Qi ieQi din sUrite' pepeni' R^R^ni5 a%i sUri m#Qtar#l' b^?d^c#l' RandUra5 a se aprinde br#sc5 a i se s#i piper#l la nasFBH, fl, the nest (fam) "leave one"s parents in order to live on one"s o1n" a%Qi l#a ?bor#l, a se desc#rca sin&#r, a trUi pe cont propri#, fl, the pit (h#mo#ro#s) <to move #ne(pectedly 1itho#t payin& the rent" a o Qter&e, a ?b#ra din colivieF9H. S#ch e(pressions are #sed in both common core @n&lish and in f#nctional lan&#a&es+ e.&. a fl,$6,$ night peeson trecUtor, pasa&er5 (ec.) insolvabilF17H, fl, the eagle (pol. /m. @) a Rine #n disc#rs bombastic propUvUd#ind idei e(pansionisteF11H. Special attention has to be devoted to 1ords s#ch as fl, eight (bo() cate&oria m#scU, and fl, heel volant, 1hich are not collocations b#t one%1ord compo#ndsF12H. Ho1ever, in spite of its polysemy, the 1ord fl, is not incl#ded in dictionaries of tro#blesome 1ords and phrases. 4t is 1orth mentionin&, tho#&h, as an e(ample of polysemy. 0oreover, it can be considered tro#blesome in the collocational idiomatic patterns referred to above 1hich may be incl#ded amon& conf#sables as translation traps. (.2.1. C%lt%re specific conf%sa6les are some of the &reatest translation traps. Some e(amples of s#ch conf#sables are+
assure 1 ensure ! insure) cafe 1 cafeteria) canteen 1 cantina) carline 1 car line) centenar* 1 centennial) cheveret 1 chevret ! chevrette) chilli! chill*) commisar 1 commisar*) commissionaire 1 commissioner) commutator 1 commuter) comprehansible 1 comprehensive) council 1 counsel) dobb*! dobie) dom!dome) doolie 1 dool*) dragon! dragoon2

$he e(planations concernin& the c#lt#ral differences are &iven either in brac6ets, li6e the indications of &rammatical stat#s, modality, re&ister, variety of @n&lish, or as a c#lt#ral note. 8or e(ample+ co%ncil H-aInsl n. (R sing#( pl# v#) 1. a &ro#p of people appointed or elected to ma6e la1s, or to ta6e decisions+ The matter "as debated in the Security 7ouncil (fig# There "as a family council to decide "hat to do "ith the land: consili%. 2. (esp# <rE the &ro#p representin& local &overnment in a to1n+ The council have told them to clean the streets: consili% localC "%nicipal. >. 6e on the co%ncil+ to be an elected member of it+ Ger husband is on the council: a fi "e"6r% 9ales: Dn consili%. C%lt%ral note 4n =ritish @n&lish co%ncil is #sed for local &overnment a#thority. 4t is not very common in the SS, 1here the system of local &overnment varies from state to state. $hat is 1hy the /mericans #se the collocations+ cit, co%ncil# to n co%ncil# co%nt, co%ncil.
co%nsel H-aInsl n. 1.(la" a la1yer (in =ritain a 6arrister) defendin& someone in la1 co#rt+ )either of the parties "ere represented by counsel (_ neither of them had la1yers). The Iudge called the defence counsel to set forth evidence: a)ocat. 2. (formal, or literary advice+ The president too. counsel from some clever specialists: sfat. >. to -eep oneHs o n co%nsel+ to 6eep oneVs opinions, or intentions secret+ Ge had been .no"n to be a man "ho used to .eep his o"n counsel + a n%$Ji sp%ne secret%l# a n%$Ji face c%nosc%te plan%rile# intenKiile. co"prehensi6le ,- "prHhens6l a'E. 9to: (formal that can be made o#t+ 6t "as a short, comprehensible speech appreciated by everybody# This document is comprehensible only to specialists! care se poate DnKelege# inteligi6il# clar. co"prehensi)e ,- "prHhens) a'E. 1. thoro#&h, min#te+ There had been comprehensive inspection of the "hole factory# This article gives a comprehensive .no"ledge of the subIect: "in%KiosL c%prin<Mtor# )ast. 2. (no comp. =r@.) (of ed#cation) teachin& p#pils of different abilities over the a&e of 11+ She goes to the local comprehensive (school # C%lt%ral note. $he comprehensive system, introd#ced in 19 D, replaced the old system of

&rammar schools and secondary moderns, 1hich too6 p#pils dependin& on 1hether they had

!9

passed or failed an e(am called the eleven%pl#s. 2ver B7` of =ritish p#pils attend comprehensive schools. 3hildren are often p#t in &ro#ps accordin& to their level of ability at a comprehensive+ 2e didnNt
"ant to send our son to a public school, "e thought of the local comprehensive.

3onse.#ently, besides the e(planations referrin& to the differences in meanin& bet1een conf#sable 1ords, 6no1led&e of tro#blesome 1ords or conf#sables is very #sef#l as re&ards #sa&e, pron#nciation, spellin&, the conte(t#ali?ations bein& as essential as their translation beca#se they reinforce the meanin& and sho1 ho1 1ords are #sed in conte(t.

(.3. Non$e+%i)alence sit%ations in translating i'io"s

$here is no e.#ivalent in the $-. $here is a similar co#nterpart in the $- b#t a different conte(t of #se. / S- idiom may be #sed in both its literal and idiomatic senses. $here are different conte(ts of #se in S- and $-.

$here is no e.#ivalent in the $-+ e.&. 7arry coals to )e"castle ;erry 7hristmas '4dioms and fi(ed e(pressions 1hich contain c#lt#re%specific items are not necessarily #ntranslatable. 4t is not the specific items an e(pression contains b#t rather the "eaning it con)e,s an' its association ith c%lt%re$specific conte!ts 1hich can ma6e it #ntranslatable or diffic#lt to translate.: (8ernando and 8lavell 19B1+ BD, emphasis added). $here is a similar co#nterpart in the $- b#t a different conte(t of #se+ e.&. to sing a different tune X to say or do sth that si&nals a chan&e in opinion beca#se it contradicts 1hat one has said or done before X a c>nta pe voci (tonuri diferite to go to the dogs ! lose one"s &ood .#alities (abo#t a person, place) 8 a se duce de r>p: ( pe apa S>mbetei! to s+ate on thin ice 1 act un"isely / S- idiom may be #sed in both its literal and idiomatic senses+ e.&. po+e one/s nose into others/private affairs 1 a-Bi b:ga nasul @n treburile altora ( a se amesteca ./ll cut off m* (right) arm (right #sed for emphasis) 0igs might fl* $he play on idiom cannot be s#ccessf#lly reprod#ced in the $- if there is no correspondin& idiom. $here are different conte(ts of #se in the S- and $-+ e.&. get up and go

D7

(a car) after *our own heart get going in3to show what *ou are made it/s a lot more than 'ust a prett* face it/s 'ust the tic+et S#ch sit#ations are fre.#ent in @n&lish advertisements, promotional materials and in the tabloid press. $hey are rather rare in ne1s reports. 4t is a real fact that 'FSHsin& idioms re.#ires that the translator sho#ld be not only acc#rate b#t also hi&hly sensitive to the rhetorical n#ances of the lan&#a&e: (8ernando and 8lavell 19B1+ BD, emphasis added). $he cross%c#lt#ral differences deeply affect disco#rse practices at the verbal level. 4t is #s#ally diffic#lt for the translators to mediate these differences 1hich may be latent and prone to mis#nderstandin& and misinterpretation, on the one hand, and verbally constructed in specific "ays from one culture to another , on the other hand. 4n order to avoid comm#nicative brea6do1n, the translator has to ma6e #p for the mismatches bet1een the t1o lan&#a&e c#lt#res, th#s creating that famo#s 9brid&e: bet1een them. $he translator"s choices 1ill depend on the 6no1led&e of the c#lt#ral codes embedded in the t1o lan&#a&es and c#lt#res, especially of the differences bet1een them.

(.5. Non$e +%i)alence sit%ations an' traps in translating literar, te!ts >.B.1. -i6e any 6ind of comm#nication, translation is recipient 'reader X oriented. Startin& from this idea, it is the intended p#rpose of the tar&et te(t ($$) i.e.:translation s6opos: (Meiss and Cermeer, 19B!), that imposes the translation methods, techni.#es and strate&ies. Snli6e the f#nctional or speciali?ed translations that have to consider the 9end X #ser: and have to meet 1ith certain e(act re.#irements s#ch as conciseness, e(actness and ob;ectivity, the literary translations need caref#l investi&ation of the c#lt#ral, social D1

and historical conte(ts of the so#rce X te(t (S$) and tar&et X te(t ($$). =esides the e(tralin&#istic factors, they need psycholin&#istic, lin&#istic and pra&matic 6no1led&e of both lan&#a&es and c#lt#res in 1hich the translator operates, the $ranslation 2perator ($2) bein& a mediator bet1een the t1o lan&#a&es and c#lt#res in contact. 4n translatin& literary te(ts, both the translation theory and practice, on the one hand, and translation criticism, on the other, have to consider a series of criteria for the analysis of the S$ and $$ important in interpretin& and translatin& the te(t. /mon& the most important coordinates of literary translations, intentionality determines the translator"s choices, the a#thor"s intention bein& as important as the recipient that defines the comm#nicative sit#ation and the f#nction of the te(t. /ccordin& to the f#nctional X pra&matic approach, translation criticism foc#ses on the prod#ct of the translatin& process, i.e. the $$, comparin& it to the S$. / critical analysis of the S$ and $$ version(s) is made in terms of acc#racy, ade.#acy and effect. Style, 1hich is a 9property of lan&#a&e #sers in partic#lar 6inds of settin&s: (Hatim and 0ason 1992+17) is also e(tremely important both in translatin& literary te(ts and in comparin& the S$ and $$ version(s). $he ideal to to#ch in translatin& literary te(ts consists in e(pressin& the 1hole #niverse of ideas of the so#rce X lan&#a&e te(t (S-$). 4n a 1ider sense, this ideal means the re%creation of the S-$ in the $- by different means, 1hich reminds #s of M. Ja6obson"s 9li6eness in f#ndamental difference: (Ja6obson 19D9).$he literary translation helps the reader &o ,by 1ay of comprehension, #p to the a#thor"s #niverse of ideas and feelin&s, as Schleiermacher p#t it. Me%creatin& the S-$ means decodin& the a#thor"s #niverse, renderin& the denotations and the connotations in the $-, renderin& the messa&e, as 1ell as identifyin&, on the one hand, 1ith the a#thor"s #niverse in the $system and 1ith the $- reader, on the other. >.B.2. 2ne of the most important semantic aspects of translation is the semantic content of a 1ord 1hich consists of+ a) the &eneral meanin& of the lin&#istic notion5 b) the occasional meanin& , i.e. the &eneral meanin& in a certain sit#ational conte(t5 c) the &eneral representation of the notion as a res#lt of all the occasional #ses or

D2

occ#rrences5 d) the secondary representations, i.e. s#b;ective associations5 e) feelin& X tones, i.e. connotations. $herefore, distinction m#st be made bet1een the primary X lin&#istic aspect, based on the co&nitive e(perience and incl#din& the denotative meanin& #s#ally described by means of referential definitions, and the secondary lin&#istic aspect 1hich incl#des the specific overtones related to the c#lt#ral conte(t or to a certain individ#al e(perience , i.e. connotations. @#&ene Nida distin&#ishes bet1een the referential or co&nitive meanin&, related to the e(tralin&#istic ob;ect in its c#lt#ral conte(t, and the emotive meanin&, related to the s#b;ective relations. $he former is possible, tho#&h sometimes diffic#lt to translate, b#t it can be e(actly rendered to a certain e(tent, 1hereas the latter is very diffic#lt to translate. $hese 9feelin& tones: are real traps for translators of literary te(ts. / translator of literary te(ts sho#ld never for&et one of the f#ndamental translation principles, namely that the translation sho#ld acc#rately reflect the meanin& of the ori&inal te(t and that nothin& sho#ld be added or removed arbitrarily, tho#&h, occasionally, part of the meanin& can be 9transposed:. $he so%called 9loaded: 1ords and phrases, 1ith #nderlyin& implications, as 1ell as the 1ords and phrases 1hose dictionary meanin&s are not the most s#itable ones, are fre.#ent traps for literary translators. 4n order to ill#strate vario#s types of diffic#lties a translator has to overcome in translatin& literary te(ts, a series of e(amples 1ill be provided o#t of many others fo#nd in investi&atin& a very lar&e corp#s, prepared for st#dy 1ith a &ro#p of st#dents 1ithin the master pro&ramme in the Translation and interpretation speciali?ation. 4n disc#ssin& s#ch traps 1hich cover many types of diffic#lties, 1e considered both the e(tralin&#istic or e(trate(t#al factors (socio%c#lt#ral and historical bac6&ro#nd, a#thor, the a#thor"s intention, the place and the time the S$ 1as 1ritten in f#nction of the S$'$$, and the S$ ' $$ reader), on the one hand, and the lin&#istic or intrate(t#al factors (s#b;ect matter, content, pres#pposition % as carriers of semantic information % , as 1ell as

D>

composition, le(is, sentence str#ct#re X both s#rface and deep str#ct#re X and s#prase&mental feat#res ), all of them bearin& stylistic implications. /ll these factors are very #sef#l in the correct interpretation of the S$ 1ithin a $ranslation X 2riented $e(t /nalysis ($2$/), and in prod#cin& the $$. >.B.>. / n#mber of translation diffic#lties fo#nd in the corp#s st#died 1ere classified accordin& to the follo1in& criteria+ 1) 3onnotations diffic#lt to render in the $$5 2) Kifferent conte(t#al distrib#tions in the $-5 >) 3ollocabillity5 !) Shifts or transpositions5 D) Kifferent syntactic str#ct#res from S- to $-. St#dyin& the connotations fo#nd in the corp#s, three types 1ere obvio#s+ a) connotations derived from the primary dictionary meanin& or denotation5 b) connotations derived from one of the secondary dictionary meanin&s5 c) (a) different connotation(s) in the $$ in terms of the co X te(t. >.B.>.1. /mon& the three types of connotations mentioned above, the first one 1as the most fre.#ent in translatin& five of the fra&ments incl#ded in the corp#s. /n interestin& e(ample may be the no#n consecration in the str#ct#re consecration of its loneliness (in the fra&ment from Sane Eyre), rendered by sfin?enia singur:?:?ii: 6 sa" the fascination of the locality# 6 felt the consecration of its lonelinessL Mescopeream fascina?ia tinutului# Sim?eam sfin?enia singur:t:?ii acestei aBe$:riL

4n this conte(t, the no#n consecration cannot be translated by its first meanin&, i.e. 9dedication to the service and 1orship of Aod: (Iebster), b#t it has to be &iven a connotative meanin& in terms of the co X te(t, as 1ell as in terms of its collocabillity 1ith the verb to reverence:

D!

6 li.ed to read "hat they li.ed to read!"hat they enIoyed delighted me!"hat they approved 6 reverencedL Jmi pl:cea s: citesc ceea ce le pl:cea Bi lor! ceea ce pentru ele era o bucurie, pentru mine era o @nc>ntare! pre?uiam tot ceea ce ele apreciauL /nother e(ample is the verb to shield in the synta&m to shield his life from the eyes of men, in the fra&ment from The 3andscape Painter: 4or five years, accordingly,he managed to shield his life from the eyes of menL Jn consecin?:, a reuBit timp de cinci ani s: tr:iasc: departe de privirile celor din IurL $his verb cannot be translated by its primary dictionary meanin&s, i. e. a%Qi prote;a 'a% Qi feri viaRa de, beca#se they are not specific to the $-5 besides, the Momanian phrase de ochii l#mii has f#lly different connotations and matches different conte(ts. $herefore, a phrase specific to Momanian has to be #sed. $he ad;ective outside in the str#ct#re the outside "orld (in the fra&ment from Picture of Morian Eray) 1as rendered by cei care nu-l cunoBteau prea bine( care @l cunoBteau mai pu?in in terms of the co%te(t,in contrast 1ith Society cei apropia?i: 5t half past t"elve next day 3ord Genry 2otton strolled from 7ur$on Street over to the 5lbany to call on his uncle, 3ord 4ermor, a genial if some"hat rough 8 mannered old bachelor, "hom the outside "orld called selfish because it derived no particular benefit from him, but "ho "as considered generous by Society as he fed the people "ho amused him 5 doua $i la dou:spre$ece Bi Ium:tate, lordul Genry 2otton porni agale din strada 7ur$on spre 5lbany pentru a-i face o vi$it: unchiului s:u, lordul 4ermor, un burlac b:tr>n Bi vesel, deBi oarecum lipsit de maniere 8 despre care cei ce @l cunoBteau mai pu?in spuneau c: este un egoist, c:ci nu tr:geau nici un folos de pe urma lui 8 dar considerat generos de cei apropia?i deoarece le d:dea de m>ncare celor care @l amu$au# 3onsiderin& the co X te(t (incl#din& the reference to -ord 8ermor), it becomes obvio#s that the no#n Society does not refer here to 9the 1hole body of individ#als livin& as members of a comm#nity, b#t to one social class only, that of the 1ealthy, prominent and fashionable persons: (Iebster+ 1>D1)5 moreover, it is spelt 1ith a capital letter. 3onse.#ently, involvin& the emphasis that -ord 8ermor 1as part of that social class and

DD

that he 6ne1 almost all its remar6able representatives, the translator"s final choice 1as cei apropia?i in contrast 1ith cei ce @l cunoBteau mai pu?in# 0ore e(amples of s#ch connotations co#ld be fo#nd in the fra&ment from Typhoon, e# g# pitch, suc., tunnel: Ger lurches had an appalling helplessness! she pitched as if ta.ing a header into a void, and seemed to find a "all to hit every time L5t certain moments, the air streamed against the ship as if suc.ed through a tunnel "ith a concentrated solid force of impact that seemed to lift her clean out of the "ater and .eep her up for an instant "ith only a %uiver running through her from end to end# Tbuciumul lui PvasuluiQ dovedea o neputin?: @nsp:im>nt:toare: disp:rea @n tala$uri ca Bi cum ar fi plonIat @n gol Bi de fiecare dat: p:rea c: se i$beBte de un $idLJn r:stimpuri, curen?ii de aer loveau vasul de parc: l-ar fi tras @n Ios printr-o p>lnie uriaB: cu o cumplit: for?a de impact care i$bea vasul cu @nverBunare Bi care p:rea c: @l ridic: cu totul din ap: Bi @l ?ine astfel pre? de o clip:, str:b:tut doar de un tremur de la un cap:t la altul# The verb pitch 1as translated by disp:rea @n tala$uri, d#e to the impossibility of translatin& it by its first dictionary meanin&, i.e. 9to fall s#ddenly and heavily in a partic#lar direction: (-K3@). 4ts synonyms, a se av^nta' a?v^rli' ar#nca' af#nda' prUb#Qi' pica do not collocate 1ith the no#n vas in order to describe the movement of the ship. $he elliptical comparative cla#se as if suc.ed through a tunnel 1as interpreted in terms of the conte(t, as the no#n tunnel co#ld not be translated by t#nel' canal' coridor' ReavU' &alerie, none of them collocatin& 1ith either c#renRi de aer or c#mplita forRU de impact5 the final choice 1as made for the Momanian e.#ivalent to have the same effect on the reader. 3onse.#ently, in order to preserve the stylistic effect of the verb suc., the Momanian variant tras @n Ios printr-o p>lnie uriaB: 1as the best choice5 f#rthermore, the epithet uriaB: emphasises the contrast bet1een the si?e of the ship and the #nleashed forces of nat#re the ship fo#&ht a&ainst. >.B.>.2. $he connotations derived from one of the secondary dictionary meanin&s are also very fre.#ent and diffic#lt to render in the $-. 8or e(ample, the s#bstantivi?ed ad;ective the impertinent (in the fra&ment from The 3andscape Painter) 1as rendered by celor indiscre?i, beca#se it 1as interpreted to have a connotation derived from the secondary dictionary meanin&, i.e. nepotrivit. $he #se of the ad;ective c#rioQi in the p#blished version is also a &ood choice. $he no#n spots (in the fra&ment from 2hat

;aisie Une" doamne

1as translated by its connotation, i.e. imperfec?iuni, beca#se it 1as

associated 1ith brilliancy of a ladyNs complexion translated by str:lucirea obra$ului unei and 1ith the str#ct#re the motherNs character+ The father, "ho, though bespattered from head to foot, had made good his case, "as,PLQ appointed to .eep her!it "as not so much that the motherNs character had been more absolutely damaged as that the brilliancy of a ladyNs complexion PLQmight be more regarded as sho"ing the spots

Tat:l, deBi @mproBcat cu noroi din cap p>n:-n picioare, @Bi pledase bine cau$a,P##Q fu
numit sus?in:torul legal, nu at>t pentru faptul c: reputa?ia mamei a fost iremediabil compromis:, c>t pentru faptul c: str:lucirea obra$ului unei doamne PLQ ar putea fi privit: mai mult ca o imperfec?iune# / very interestin& e(ample may be the synta&m of all the moods and tenses of the ocean (in the fragment from The 3andscape Painter : 6 am enamoured of all the moods and tenses of the ocean S>nt @ndr:gostit de capriciile Bi toanele oceanuluiL $his final choice 1as made beca#se these connotations preserve the stylistic effect of the hendyadis in the S$. >.B.>.>. 4n st#dyin& the types of connotations and the 1ays of renderin& them in the $-, a lot of 1ords 1ere fo#nd in the so#rce X te(ts 1ith different connotations in the $$s in terms of the co% te(t. $he str#ct#re mutually entertained (in the fra&ment fom Jane @yre) 1as rendered by sim?indu-ne bine @mpreun:, beca#se the transitive a distra pe cineva has different connotations in the $-+ Thus occupied, and mutually entertained, days passed li.e hours, and "ee.s li.e days 5v>nd astfel de preocup:ri Bi sim?indu-ne bine @mpreun:, $ilele treceau ca orele, iar s:pt:m>nile ca $ilele# / very interestin& e(ample is "ith her full complement of limbs (in $he 3andscape Painter) that cannot be rendered by cu bra?ele @ntregi, 1hich 1o#ld miss the stylistic effect of the ori&inal. $he variant ]n deplinUtatea formelor ei 1o#ld be 1ron&, and ]nainte de a fi m#tilatU 1o#ld mean more than the a#thor"s intention and 1o#ld even alter the ori&inal+ 6 used to hear that her lover "as fond of comparing her to 0enus of ;ilo! and, indeed, if you can imagine the mutilated goddess "ith her full complement of

D7

limbs PLQ you may obtain a vague notion of ;iss Sosephine 3eary# 5u$eam adesea c: iubitului ei @i pl:cea foarte mult s-o compare cu statuia lui 0enus din ;ilo! Bi @ntradev:r, dac: v-a?i imagina-o pe $ei?: av>nd Bi bra?ele @ntregi PLQ, atunci v-a?i face o idee vag: despre @nf:?iBarea domniBoarei 3eary# 3onse.#ently, this final choice is considered to match the ori&inal better in terms of ade.#acy 4n the same te(t, the str#ct#re of heroic proportions cannot be &iven a literal translation, beca#se the effect 1o#ld be rather hilario#s. 0ore than that, there is no reference to si?e, b#t it is her bea#ty that is meant, comparison bein& dra1n to the stat#e of Cen#s+ 2hen he "al.ed about "ith his betrothed it "as half a matter of surprise that he should have ventured to propose to a young lady of such heroic proportions 7>nd se plimba al:turi de logodnica lui, era oarecum surprin$:tor faptul c: @ndr:$nise s: cear: @n c:s:torie o domniBoar: de o asemenea frumuse?e statuar:# >.B.!. $he conte(t#al distrib#tion of every le(ical item is specific to each of the t1o lan&#a&es in contact. S#ch may be the case of the no#n portions (in 2hat ;aisie Une" translated by cele doua Ium:t:?i considerin& the determiner #sed 1ith its anaphoric f#nction, as 1ell as the fact that it does not collocate 1ith the verb a ]mpUrRi. $here is repetition in the p#blished version, besides the #se of the verb a tUia even if it is #sed in its connotation+ She "as divided in t"o and the portions tossed impartially to the disputants# Ea a fost @mp:r?it: @n dou:, iar Ium:t:?ile au fost aruncate f:r: p:rtinire celor care Bi-o revendicau# $he Momanian e.#ivalents of the no#n simpleton have different conte(t#al distrib#tions. 4n the fra&ment from Pride 5nd PreIudice it 1as translated by nerod, not by nUtUrU#, altho#&h, accordin& to a semantic translation, it 1o#ld render the meanin& of the ori&inal better (C.=reban+ nUtUrU# X care pricepe &re#). Ho1ever, nUtUrU#' prost' ble& 'imbecil have different conte(t#al distrib#tions in Momanian+

DB

4f 6 can perceive her regard for him, he must be a simpleton indeed not to discover it too# Mac: eu @mi pot da seama de admira?ia ei pentru el, atunci el trebuie s: fie chiar nerod s: nu observe acest lucru# /nother interestin& e(ample can be fo#nd in one of H. James" titles, i.e. papers, in The 5spern Papers, rendered by @nsemn:ri not by doc#mente, altho#&h it is #sed 1ith the meanin& of 9a doc#ment establishin& or verifyin& identity, stat#s, or the li6e+ citi?enship papers: (Iebster+ 17!!). 4t cannot be translated as s#ch beca#se of the different conte(t#al distrib#tion: papers refers to someone"s personal notes X diary. >.B.D. 2ne of the ma;or problems 1hich a translator has to face is to #se appropriate collocations in the $-$. He has to overcome the dan&er that S- interference may escape #nnoticed and an #nnat#ral collocation may occ#r in the $$. $ranslatin& collocations re.#ires the translator"s competence beca#se they provide po1erf#l evidence of intentionality and te(t X type foc#s. $hey can point to the intended meanin&, 1hich is not made e(plicit by other means. 8or e(ample, the collocation odd Iustice (in 2hat ;aisie Une" 1as translated as acest mod de a face dreptate p:rea ciudat, not by the collocation dreptate ci#datU, 1hich is not accepted in Momanian. 0oreover, it refers to the manner in 1hich ;#stice 1as done+ This "as odd Iustice in the eyes of those "ho still blin.ed in the fierce light proIected from the tribunal 8 a light in "hich neither parent figured in the least as a happy example to youth and innocence# 5cest mod de a face dreptate p:rea ciudat @n ochii celor care @nc: mai clipeau orbi?i de lumina necru?:toare ce venea dinspre tribunal 8 lumina @n care nici unul din p:rin?i nu ap:rea c>tuBi de pu?in ca un exemplu fericit pentru o fiin?: fraged: Bi nevinovat:# $here are $- collocations in 1hich neither the primary nor the secondary dictionary meanin&s of the S- no#n can be #sed, and the translator has to find a synonym accepted by the $-. 8or e(ample, the no#n congeniality in the collocation congeniality of tastes, sentiments and principles (in Sane Eyre) has to be rendered by potrivire to collocate 1ith all the three no#ns+ de gusturi, sentimente Bi principii: There "as a reviving pleasure in this intercourse, of a .ind no" tasted by me for the first time - the pleasure arising from perfect congeniality of tastes, sentiments and principles# Jn acest fel de prietenie,

D9

g:seam o pl:cere care m: @nsufle?ea Bi pe care o sim?eam pentru prima dat: 8 pl:cerea care i$vora din potrivirea perfect: de gusturi, sentimente Bi principii# /n interestin& e(ample that may seem stri6in& to the reader ;#st beca#se it creates a special stylistic effect is the collocation a concentrated solid force of impact (in Typhoon . 4t co#ld not be rendered by a symmetrical collocation in the $$, i.e. forRa masivU compactU' forRa solidU de impact c#mplitU' forRa concentratU de impact, beca#se none of these str#ct#res is appropriate in terms of collocability in Momanian. $herefore, it 1as translated as cumplita for?: de impact in order to render the meanin& of concentrated as 1ell+ 5t certain moments the air streamed against the ship as if suc.ed through a tunnel "ith a concentrated solid force of impact that seemed to lift her clean out of the "ater PLQ Jn r:stimpuri, curen?ii de aer loveau vasul de parc: l-ar fi tras @n Ios printro p>lnie uriaB: cu o cumplit: for?: de impact care i$bea vasul cu @nverBunare Bi care p:rea c: @l ridic: cu totul din ap: PLQ# S#ch rare and apparently #nacceptable collocations are called "ar-e' collocations2 $hey stri6e the reader beca#se they involve deliberate conf#sion of collocational ran&es to create ne1 ima&es. $hey may seem #ntypical in the common lan&#a&e, b#t they are often #sed in literary prose and poetry. $he differences in the collocational patternin& of the S- and $- create potential pitfalls and can be real traps for literary translators 1ho 9sometimes &et .#ite en&rossed in the so#rce X te(t and may prod#ce the oddest collocations in the tar&et X lan&#a&e for no ;#stifiable reason: (0.=a6er 1992+ D!). $ranslatin& collocations often involves a tension X a diffic#lt choice bet1een 1hat is typical and 1hat is acc#rate. 3onse.#ently, it is the collocational patternin& of a 1ord that determines its different meanin&s. /ccordin& to the principle that translation conveys more or less than the ori&inal (3roitor# 199 + !7), the $- "e.#ivalent" epithet may not be s#fficient to render the semantic content and the stylistic effect of the S- 1ord. 8or e(ample, the epithet fierce in the collocation fierce light (in 2hat ;aisie Une") 1as translated by necru?:toare not by p#ternicU' orbitoare that 1o#ld mean less than fierce in the ori&inal. 3onse.#ently, interpretation d#rin& the translatin& process 9concentrates on findin& the appropriate e(pression to convey a &iven meanin& FGH in a &iven conte(t, and 7

involves the identification of relevant concepts and their re1ordin& in another lan&#a&e so that the S- and $- 1ordin&s may correspond in their temporary meanin& in a &iven speech performance: (3roitor# 199 +>9). >.B. . Shifts (3atford"s term) or transpositions (Cinay and Karbelnet"s) are fre.#ent translation proced#res 1hich involve chan&es in the &rammar from S- to $-. 2ne of the most fre.#ent cases is the #se of a lon& synta&m to render a no#n. 8or e(ample, the no#n s"eetness (in 2hat ;aisie Une" 1as translated as gustul dulce al succesului, beca#se the $- lac6s an e.#ivalent in s#ch a conte(t+ 5ttached, ho"ever, to the second pronouncement "as a condition that detracted, for <eale 4arange, from its s"eetness 8 an order that he should refund to his late "ife the t"enty-six hundred pounds do"n by her PLQ 7u toate acestea, la a doua pronun?are sa ad:ugat o clau$: care @i lua lui <eale 4arange din gustul dulce al succesului 8 hot:r>re prin care trebuia s: restituie fostei sale so?ii cele dou: mii Base sute de lire sterline, pl:tite de eaP##Q# 8or comm#nicative p#rposes, in the p#blished version it 1as translated by sU primeascU hotUr^rea c# mai p#tin ent#?iasm coverin& the 1hole syntactic str#ct#re the predicate incl#ded. 4n the same fra&ment, the no#n sider 1as translated by a very lon& synta&m incl#din& an attrib#tive cla#se, i.e. cei care erau de partea unuia sau a celuilalt+ There had been OsidesN before, and there "ere sides as much as ever! for the sider too the prospect opened out, ta.ing the pleasant form of a superabundance of matter for desultory conversation 4usesera Bi @nainte Op:r?iN adverse, dar acum erau unul @mpotriva celuilalt mai mult ca niciodat: ( Erau Bi acum, ca Bi @nainte,Np:rtiN adverse! iar celor care erau de partea unuia sau a celuilalt li se ofereau noi prileIuri ce c:p:tau forma placut: a numeroaselor( ce se concreti$au @n numeroase subiecte pentru conversa?ii oca$ionale Bi inutile# /nother e(ample is the no#n "ell"ishers also rendered by an attrib#tive cla#se, beca#se it co#ld not be translated by any of the synonyms s#sRinUtori' simpati?anRi' parti?ani' doritori de bine that have different conte(t#al distrib#tions+ That most popular "ith 3oc.sleyNs "ell"ishers "as that he had bac.ed out PLQ 7el mai frecvent

comentariu printre cei care erau de partea lui 3oc.sley era ca el fusese cel care renun?ase PLQ $he verbal ad;ective is most fre.#ently rendered into Momanian by a 1hole cla#se, #s#ally an attrib#tive cla#se. 8or e(ample, reviving in the collocation reviving pleasure (in Sane Eyre) 1as translated by the attrib#tive cla#se care m: @nsufle?ea: There "as a reviving pleasure in this intercourse, of a .ind no" tasted by me for the first time - the pleasure arising from perfect congeniality of tastes, sentiments, and feelings# Jn acest fel de prietenie, g:seam o pl:cere care m: @nsufle?ea Bi pe care o sim?eam pentru prima dat: 8 pl:cerea care i$vora din potrivirea perfect: de gusturi, sentimente Bi principii# 4n the p#blished version, it 1as translated by the ad;ective mare aattrib#tive cla#se, i.e. o mare b#c#rie pe care o &#stam ]nt^ia oarU 1hich is considered to be a semantic loss. >.B.7. Kifferences in the &rammatical str#ct#res of the S- and $- may often brin& abo#t some chan&e in the information content of the messa&e. $1o of the most fre.#ent and most obvio#s chan&es are those ta6in& the form of addition (i.e. addin& to the $$ information that is not e(pressed in the S$), or of omission (i.e. omittin& information specified in the S$). Here are some of the most fre.#ent syntactic str#ct#res fo#nd in the te(ts analysed and translated+ >.B.7.1. S- no#n+ a) $- no#n aad;ective (bree$es aerul r:coros ! b) $- no#n a det. a ad;. (extravagance cheltuielile mele extravagante : a 5nd "e, the "eary pilgrims of the 3ondon pavement, "ere beginning to thin. of the cloud 8 shado"s on the corn 8 fields, and the autumn bree$es on the sea 8 shore# 6ar noi, istovi?i pelerini ai str:$ilor 3ondrei, @ncepeam s: ne g>ndim la umbrele norilor deasupra lanurilor de gr>u Bi la aerul r:coros de toamn: la malul m:rii# b 5nd my extravagance no" limited me to the prospect of spending the autumn economically bet"een my motherNs cottage at Gampstead and my o"n chambers in

to"n# 6ar cheltuielile mele extravagante nu-mi l:sau acum dec>t posibilitatea de a-mi petrece toamna @ntr-un mod mai chib$uit @ntre c:su?a din Gampstead a mamei Bi apartamentul meu din oraB# >.B.7.2. S- ad;. a ad;. $- adv. R ad;. (a charm both potent and permanent pururea ire$istibil : 6, too, in the gray, small, anti%ue structure PLQ found a charm both potent and permanent# =i eu, la r>ndul meu, g:seam un farmec pururea

ire$istibil @n c:su?a aceea cenuBie Bi veche PLQ# >.B.7.>. S- no#n a verb a no#n+ a) $- verb a adv. ( thought fitted thought gandeam la fel ! b) $- verb (a avea )a det. a no#n (opinion met opinion aveam aceleaBi p:reri : Though fitted thought! opinion met opinion! "e coincided, in short, perfectly# E>ndeam la fel! aveam aceleaBi p:reri! pe scurt, ne @n?elegeam perfect# >.B.7.!. S- no#n a prep. a no#n+ a) $- verb a direct ob;ect cla#se (claims to distinction pretindeau c: se deosebesc prin ceva: <oth parties possessed certain claims to distinction # 5mbele

p:r?i pretindeau c: se deosebesc prin ceva anume# b) $- no#n a ad;. (the blac.ness of the clouds norii @ntuneca?i! effect of %uietness efect liniBtitor : 5nd on this da$$ling sheet, spread under the blac.ness of the clouds PLQ, 7aptain ;ac2hirr could catch a desolate glimpse of a fe" tiny spec.s blac. as ebony PLQ =i pe aceast: @ntindere str:lucitoare de sub norii @ntuneca?i PLQ, c:pitanul ;ac2hirr reuBi s: desluBeasc: niBte puncte mici, r:$le?e, negre ca abanosulPLQ# 5nd he heard that voice, forced and ringing feebly, but "ith a penetrating effect of %uietness in the enormous discord of noises, as if sent out from some remote spot of peacePLQ =i din nou au$i glasul acela slab, dar care @ncerca s: se fac: au$it, cu un puternic efect liniBtitor @n vacarmul acela asur$itor, venind parc: din vreun loc @ndep:rtat , dintr-o oa$: de liniBte PLQ# >

c) $- no#n a prep. a (det.' pron.) no#n a prep. a no#n ( P remoteQ spot of peace loc P @ndep:rtatQ dintr-o (vreo oa$: de liniBte (see above). Sometimes the $- &rammatical str#ct#re is different in terms of relevance. 8or e(ample, the verb to find is irrelevant in the sentence She seemed to find a "all to hit# 3onse.#ently, the translation 1as P:rea c: se loveBte de un $id (in Typhoon,see above). $he s#btle choices in point of relevance may differ si&nificantly from one translator to another, 1hich 1o#ld affect the .#ality and acc#racy of the translation. 2n the other hand, fail#re to correctly render the S- str#ct#res 1ill res#lt in very #nnat#ral te(ts. d) $- no#n mar6ed for the pl#ral correspondin& to the S$ sin&#lar. 8or e(ample, the no#ns in the str#ct#re "ave and roc. and cloud are mar6ed for the pl#ral in the $- in order to preserve the stylistic effect of the ori&inal+ )ever before have 6 seen such a pretty little coast 8 never before have 6 been so ta.en "ith "ave and roc. and cloud# )iciodat: nu am mai v:$ut un col? de lume at>t de frumos pe ?:rmul m:rii, niciodat: nu am mai fost at>t de fascinat de valuri, de st>nci Bi de nori. $he coordinatin& con;#nction and in the S$ is replaced by the preposition de in the $$ in order to &ive the $$ sentence the same rhythm and m#sicality of the S$ one. $herefore, the literary translator has to overcome the restrictions imposed by certain feat#res of the S- str#ct#res and has to ma6e the $$ so#nd nat#ral. $o concl#de, the content of a messa&e in the S- cannot al1ays be matched by an e(pression 1ith e(actly the same content and the same str#ct#re in the $-. Ihat m#st be e(pressed is a problem as diffic#lt as that of ho1 it can be e(pressed. 8ollo1in& Snorms may involve insi&nificant chan&es in the overall meanin&. 2n the other hand, deviations from typical $- patterns may res#lt in a translation that 1ill so#nd 9forei&n:. 4t is obvio#s that the literary translator has to be competent in handlin& the S- patterns in order to correctly render the messa&e in the $- and to prod#ce a $$ 1hich 1ill read nat#rally and smoothly

C7APTER *

TRANSLATION STRATE;IES

*.1. Aie s relate' to translation shifts an' fra"es of reference !.1.1. / near revelation in the late nineteen % si(ties 1as that 9translation involves shifts: ()opovi\ 1977), a vie1 still debated by many translation theorists. $he prevailin& idea in the mid%ei&hties 1as that 9translation entails manip#lation of the so#rce%te(t: (Hermans 19BD). $he 1ay is not very lon& from ). Ne1mar6"s 19B1 distinction bet1een semantic and comm#nicative translations 0./.O. Halliday"s (2771) and K. Oatan"s (2771) meta% position of the translator. $h#s, ).Ne1mar6 (19B1+>9) points o#t that the comm#nicative translation is reader%oriented, pra&matic and f#nctionally oriented, 1hereas 1ith semantic translations, the translator 9may translate less important 1ords by c#lt#rally ne#tral third of f#nctional terms b#t not by c#lt#ral e.#ivalents: (Ne1mar6 19BB+! ). Iith semantic translations, the translator is faithf#l to the S$ i&norin& the real 1orld of the tar&et c#lt#re ($3). 0./.O. Halliday (2771+1D) considered three vectors to be the most relevant+ stratification (ordered strata+ phonetic, phonolo&ical, le(ico% &rammatical, semantic and conte(t#al), meta-function (content strata5 i.e. le(ico&rammar and semantics, in three f#nctional components+ ideational, interpersonal and te(t#al), and ran. (formal strata in a hierarchy from cla#se to morpheme). He also referred to e.#ivalence at different strata carryin& different val#es+ the hi&her the strata or ran6s, the hi&her the val#es. $he ideational e.#ivalence (on the basis of 1hich translation e.#ivalence is defined) belon&in& to the meta%f#nction, is the most important of all+ a $$ has to match its S$ ideationally. $a6in& into consideration the tas6 of the translator as a 9chooser of alternatives: (=ennett 199>+ 2, .#oted in Oatan 277!+ 12!), K. Oatan and 8. Straniero Ser&io (2771+ 227%221, Oatan 2771b) s#&&est the translator"s meta-position+ 'a translator is not only able to mindshift and associate 1ith both the S$ and the virt#al $$, b#t is also able to ta6e a third percept#al position Fthe meta%positionH 1hich is dissociated from both c#lt#res:.

!.1.2. -on& before, ). Ne1mar6 (19BB+1 >) pointed o#t the importance of the c#lt#ral conte(t besides the lin&#istic conte(t, referential conte(t and individ#al conte(t, the idiolect of the 1riter. H. J. Cermeer (19B>, .#oted in A. Aar?one 277>+ D ) also distin&#ished bet1een paraculture, i.e. the c#lt#re of lar&e national, ethnic &ro#ps, and diaculture, 1hich corresponds to the sociolo&ical concept of s#b%c#lt#re, characteri?in& restricted social &ro#ps. A. Hofstede"s (19B!, 1991) model is also very important for the bi%polar dimensions &iven to c#lt#re+ individ#alism X collectivism, masc#linity X feminity, hi&h X lo1 #ncertainty avoidance, hi&h%lo1 po1er distance. /. Ne#bert and A. 0. Shreve (1992+!B) share the co&nitive psycholo&y point of vie1 accordin& to 1hich 9te(t comprehension only occ#rs 1hen the comprehender actively con;ect#res or pro;ects the semantic content contained in the te(t:. A. $o#ry"s (199D+ )art !) la1s refer to the e(istence ' non%e(istence of certain feat#res in translated prod#cts, the relationships bet1een the prod#cts and their so#rce te(ts, determinin& factors (co&nitive, cross%lin&#istic, te(t#al, te(t%typolo&ical, socio% c#lt#ral (incl#din& all 6inds of ideolo&y) and their translation%specific or not infl#ence on the translator"s behavio#r, as 1ell as their interaction. $ranslators need profo#nd c#lt#ral 6no1led&e, in order to eval#ate another c#lt#re"s 1ay. Kifferences of c#lt#ral val#es are very important in #nderstandin& a series of related terms. 4n s#ch sit#ations, s#bstit#tes 9are incomplete, #nclear and often misleadin&:. (Oatan 277!) $he translator is not a faithf#l reprod#cer of the S$ b#t an inventive re%creator. He is a re%1riter 1ho determines the implied meanin&s on the $- te(t. 4n the act of re% 1ritin&, 9he also re%determines the meanin& of the ori&inal: (/lvare? and Cidal 199 +!). $h#s the role of the translator has chan&ed from that of faithf#l reprod#cer to an inventive interventionist:. (Holman and =oase % =eier 1999+1!). 4n many conte(ts, it is important 9to determine the meanin&s of terms on the basis of contrasts and comparisons 1ith the meanin&s of related 1ords 1ithin the same paradi&matic set:. (Nida 2771+> ) 4n determinin& the meanin&s of 1ords, the role of the conte(t is ma(imi?ed, 1hereas the role of any focal element is minimi?ed, 1hich means

that 9the conte(t act#ally provides more distinctiveness of meanin& than the term bein& analysed: (id., ibid.) $he translator has his hierarchies of aims 1hich constrain and colour the re% created te(t. (Holman and =oase%=eier 1999+ 9). $he translator"s s6ill consists in findin& the appropriate level of ad;#stment, in order to avoid conveyin& the 1ron& messa&e. /s 0. =a6er (1992+2D7) p#ts it, :4n translation, anythin& that is li6ely to violate the tar&et readers" e(pectations m#st be caref#lly e(amined and, if necessary, ad;#sted in order to avoid conveyin& the 1ron& implicat#res or even failin& to ma6e sense alto&ether:. !.1.>. $he translator has to solve the differences of perception and interpretation. Ie are in favo#r of the interpretive translation. 4nterpretation is a sta&e of the translatin& process (3roitor# 199 ), consists in clarifyin& or e(plainin& the meanin&, constr#in& si&nificance, clearin& #p intentionality, representin& the spirit or meanin& of the S$. $h#s, the literary translator has to ma6e it easier for the tar&et reader ($M) to #nderstand the a#thor"s intention and the te(t f#nction. O. Meiss, one of the fo#nders of the S6opos f#nctionalist theory, also a&rees that a s#ccessf#l translation depends on 9identifyin& the so#rce%te(t typolo&ies, incl#din& the te(t"s appeal or aim, and reconstr#ctin& those elements in the receivin& c#lt#re (in Aent?er 2771+72). $his opinion is also shared by M. =ell (1991) and Ne1mar6 (19B1, 19BB) 1ho consider that the translator ma6es sense of the ne1 te(t by #nderstandin& the te(t type. 8or this p#rpose, the translator ma6es #se of translation strate&ies s#ch as compensation, paraphrase, red#ction or e(pansion (Ne1mar6 19BB+BB%97), e(plicitation (=l#m%-#l6a 19B , 3roitor# 277 ), mod#lation (Ne1mar6 19BB, Sal6ie 277>, 3roitor# 277 ), deletion, distortion, deviation, manip#lation, some of them bein& part of the 0eta% 0odel (Oatan 277!, 3roitor# forthcomin&), and other forms of active interpretation. *.&. Interpretation as a creati)e act an' translation strategies *.&.1. Interpretation 4 a creati)e act

4nterpretation is a creative act carried o#t by every translator. 0. Holman and J. =oase%=eier (1999+1D) consider that 9FGH even 1hen stylistic devices do not provide obvio#s &aps to be filled or obvio#s patterns to be complied 1ith or creatively s#bverted, the translator cannot be free from the #nconscio#s act of creative interpretation. Ho1ever, they consider that altho#&h the translator"s art is creatively controlled in many different 1ays, he cannot be &en#inely creative. $herefore, in renderin& the messa&e of the S$, the translator is s#b;ect to the model of the S-$ on the one hand, and to the constraints imposed by the conte(t of $-3. $he fact sho#ld be mentioned that the demands of the $- lin&#istic and c#lt#ral environment are paid special attention. $h#s, the translator is 9the constrainin& and the enablin& filter: (ibid.) 4n order to arrive at a correct interpretation, caref#l readin& is a prere.#isite to translation (Ne1mar6 19BB+21, =ell 1991+1 1), also called :readin& for translation: (Ne#bert and Shreve (1992+!9), the translator bein& a <critical reader". He has to read to access frames in order to #nderstand the meta%messa&e and arrive at the virt#al translation. 4n this respect, K. Oatan s#&&ests the proced#re of chun.ing1 as a 9first step in mind shiftin& from one c#lt#ral reality to another: (Oatan 2771b, 2772, 277!). He ar&#es that this is an essential prere.#isite for the translator as c#lt#ral mediator. 3h#n6in& #p, ch#n6in& do1n and lateral ch#n6in& are essential for the translator in establishin& the 1ider and narro1er frames of reference of the S$, and for the translation environment (0athiessen 2771) 3h#n6in& #p, above the t1o different c#lt#res involved, and lateral ch#n6in& (ch#n6in& side1ays), i.e. findin& comparable frames in the $3, are very #sef#l in c#lt#ral mediation, 1hile ch#n6in& do1n is closely related to conte(t#ali?in& translation in le(ico&rammar (0athiessen 2771), and to the 0eta%0odel (Oatan 277!, 3roitor# forthcomin&). *.&.&. Local an' glo6al interpretation

$he term chun.ing, ta6en from comp#tin&, and basically meanin& to chan&e the si?e of a #nit, is also essential in Ne#ro %-in&#istic )ro&rammin&. 4n N-) it demonstrates that meanin& not only depends on conte(t or frame, b#t is also a t#rnin& from s#b%atomic to #niversal, and that the lan&#a&e of sensory%based real 1orld is lin6ed to &eneral, va&#e and metaphorical concepts (2"3onnor and Seymo#r 199>+1! %1!B, .#oted in Oatan 277!+199).

Kistinction has to be made bet1een local and global interpretation. 4t is the 1ider conte(t, that of global interpretation, or the meta-message that helps a s#ccessf#l translation. -ocal& interpretation may be misleadin& d#e to the infl#ence of the le(ico&rammar of the S$. 4n order to avoid interpretation accordin& to the s#rface str#ct#re of the S$, i.e. misleadin& local interpretation, the strate&ies of e(plicitation (addition of an e(plicit c#e), or deletion (the deletion of the distortin& element), or mod#lation (3roitor# and K#mitrasc# 277 ) are #sed. Alobal interpretation is made conscio#s by ch#n6in&, 1hich 1ill help the translator prod#ce a more $3 X oriented or a S3%oriented translation. $h#s, if he #ses ch#n6in& #p and lateral ch#n6in&, i.e. c#lt#ral e.#ivalents, the translation 1ill be $3% oriented. $he more he ch#n6s #p and side1ays, the less c#lt#re specific the 1ords. $herefore, the translator is in a meta-position 91hich is dissociated from both c#lt#res: (Oatan and Straniero Ser&io 2771+227%221, Oatan 2771b). *.&.(. ?atching the t o c%lt%ral s,ste"s $he translator needs the ability to #nderstand and match the t1o systems involved, the conte(ts of c#lt#re and sit#ation, the intelli&ibility of the lin&#istic choices e(pressed in the messa&e, and the intentionality of the messa&e. $h#s, he has to e(plore the intentionality of the messa&e and find the ade.#ate means of e(pressin& it. 0oreover, he has to ma6e intelli&ible the lin&#istic choices e(pressed in the messa&e and decide #pon the appropriate translation strateg,. 4n order to ade.#ately e(press the messa&e, 9there are a n#mber of implicit points that have to be made e(plicit FGH5 this strate&y ma6es the frames available to the S3 reader and e.#ally accessible to the $3 reader: (Oatan 277!+17D). 4n other 1ords, the strate&y of e(plicitation 1ill enable the $3 readers to access the same frame as easily and nat#rally as the S3 readers. /s c#lt#ral interpreter and mediator, the translator needs to acco#nt for information that is implicit in the conte(t of c#lt#re, 1hich 9can be perceived at a n#mber of different levels, from environment (i.e. instit#tions) to beliefs and val#es (c#lt#ral orientation) and identity: (ibid.)

-ocal interpretation 1as first dealt 1ith the =ro1n and E#le (19B>+D9). $hey s#&&ested the )rinciple of Social 4nterpretation 1hich 9instr#cts the hearer not to constr#ct a conte(t, any lar&er than the needs to arrive at an interpretation.: 4t resembles Sperber and Iilson"s (19BB+1!7). Melevance. $heory.

77

/t the lo1est level (environment), as Hatim and 0ason e(plain (1997+9!), it is already common practice 9to add or delete accordin& to the accessibility of the frame:. $he c#lt#ral &aps have to be filled in by addin& information. 2n the contrary, 1hat is e(plicit in the S$ may create #ne(pected and #ndesired associations 1hen translated into the tar&et conte(t of c#lt#re. 4n s#ch sit#ations, mediation is achieved thro#&h omission or deletion. *.&.*. 4eletion Keletion is sometimes a very #sef#l sol#tion in technical translations 1hich foc#s on transferrin& the 91hat", i.e. the conte(t from one lan&#a&e to another. /s far as the rec#rrence of le(ical items is concerned, the translator"s decision depends on many factors. 8irstly, he has to be a1are of them. Secondly, the translator 9has to consider 1hether the rec#rrence opens important val#e frames (individ#al or c#lt#ral), or 1hether the rec#rrence is d#e to a c#lt#re"s orientation to s#ch rhetorical feat#res as repetition. Simple behavio#ral r#les re&ardin& 1hen and 1here it is appropriate to delete cannot be &iven: (Oatan 277!+1BD). 4n J. Kodds" (199!) opinion, repetitions sho#ld be ri&oro#sly maintained in translation. ). Ne1mar6 (199>+ 9) is in favo#r of deletion 1hen the lan&#a&e may be ta6en as offensive (e.&. in advertisements). $he decision for deletion is often made by p#blishers in order to safe&#ard themselves from any adverse p#blicity or possible le&al action (Oatan 277!+1B7). Sometimes deletion can be a p#blisher"s 1ise move to help sell a te(t (e.&. Smberto @co"s 6l nome della rosa 1as conscio#sly abrid&ed for the /merican mar6et5 it consisted in red#cin& the -atin content by abo#t 17 per cent so as not to scare off the less er#dite reader). *.&.1. 4istortion Kistortion is a 1ay of directin& the addressee to 1hat the spea6er or 1riter considers important. :Kistortion does not &ive #s an ob;ective pict#re of reality b#t f#nctions li6e a ?oom lens allo1in& the reader to foc#s on certain aspects, 1hile leavin& other aspects in the bac6&ro#nd: (Oatan 277!+1BB). $he differences bet1een lan&#a&es at the le(ico%&rammatical level in sho1in& 1hat is thematic, 1hat is in foc#s and 1hat is emphasi?ed may brin& abo#t distortion of the messa&e. $his is a s#rface level distortion also called 9prominence:. /nother ca#se of

71

distortion of the messa&e may be a faithf#l, literal translation. @(plicitation, i.e. ma6in& e(plicit 1hat is implicit in the S$, is also a ca#se of distortion. 4oregrounding is also a fre.#ent distortion of the messa&e, i.e. brin&in& into the fore&ro#nd frames that 1ere in the S$ bac6&ro#nd. Sometimes, it is a conscio#s 1ay of increasin& the conte(t#al effects in the $$. $he renderin& of the messa&e in the $-3 is closely related to the norms of the respective $-3. /ccordin& to A. Aar?one"s (277>+7!) definition of deviation from the norms of the base lan&#a&e, :for each lan&#a&e and c#lt#re there sho#ld be a norm, coincidin& 1ith the standard comm#nicative behavio#r of the native spea6er:. Kevio#sness can occ#r in any translation. 4t may occ#r, li6e any other conscio#s manip#lation of the te(t, in faithf#l translations. ;anipulation, as 9part and partial of the translatin& process: (ibid), has been referred to by some translation theorists since the 77"s+ /. )opovi\ (1977), J. Holmes (197>), S.,=l#m%O#l6a (19B ), 0.Snell X Hornlsy (19BB), S. =assnett (1991), M. =ell (1991), /. -efevere (1992), @. Aent?ler (2771), S. Sar\evib (2771). /. )opovi\ (1977) adapted the term 9shifts: in translation to acco#nt for the losses, &ains and chan&es inherent to the translation process. 2n the other hand, =l#m%O#l6a (19B ) dealt 1ith shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation #sed to observe the norms and constraints of the $- and ad;#st to the $3 val#es. 0. Snell X Hornby (19BB+2>) a&rees to admitted manip#lation b#t not to intended e.#ivalence. S. =assnett (1991+>7) ar&#es that :sameness cannot e(ist bet1een t1o lan&#a&es:, and a&rees to the e(istence of losses and &ains in translation, her opinions bein& shared by M. =ell (1991) 1ho considers e.#ivalence to be a 9chimera:. S. Sar\evib (2771+!9, .#oted in Oatan 277!), referrin& to le&al translations, ar&#es that 9the &oal of the translators sho#ld not be fidelity to the S$ b#t fidelity to the sin&le instr#ment Fof la1H and to one"s o1n lan&#a&e:. 4n addition, 1ith the lan&#a&e of ne&otiations, the verbs facilitate (to ma6e easier, assist the pro&ress of), and mediate (to resolve differences by mediation, to be in a middle or intermediate position) are preferred to the verb manipulate# Keviation is closely related to the tar&et c#lt#ral conte(t+ 9FGH and the e(tent to 1hich deviation is perceived 1ill vary accordin& to the c#lt#ral conte(t in 1hich the $$

72

is to be embedded. Sometimes there are political or social reasons for the apparent freedom of the translation as compared to the ori&inal: (Holman and =oase%=eier op.cit+1>). Keviations are also called deviances (Ne#st#pny 19BD). /ccordin& to Ne#st#pny"s model referrin& to the lan&#a&e of ne&otiations, in oral interpretin&, there are five types of deviances5 1) propositional deviance (the inability to form#late or comprehend a proposition)5 2) presentational deviance (the inability to comm#nicate abo#t the spea6er"s attit#de, intention or personality)5 >) performance deviance (the inability of spea6ers or hearers to perform a messa&e accordin& to norms specific to $sit#ations)5 !) correction deviance (the inability to correct one"s mista6es and mis#nderstandin&s)5 D) discord deviance (the inability to match a forei&n feat#re of the sit#ation 1ith a native means of comm#nicatin& it or vice%versa) (Ne#st#pny 19BD, .#oted in Aar?one 277>+7D). *.&.2. The translation strategies s%ggeste' 6, Ca, Noller%p (277 )+

Kirect transfer 3#lt#ral adaptation 3al.#e translation Hyperonymy and hyponymy @(plicitation /dditions Non%reali?ation ' omissions 3ompensation

Kirect transfer consists in #sin& the same 1ord or e(pression in the $$, the res#lt bein& a literal translation. 3#lt#ral adaptation 1ill lead to a free (or creative) translation. 4t is $-3% oriented and consists in #sin& a 1ord'e(pression specific to the $-3.

7>

 3al.#e translation is #sed for compo#nds or phrases 1hich are rendered element for element in the $$ (most cal.#es derive from @ and /m ori&inals). Hypernymy and hyponymy consist in #sin& either the &eneral or the specific 1ord+ % hyperonym % the &eneral 1ord #sed for the specific one (e.&. plant for flo"er(lily)5 % hyponym % the specific 1ord for the &eneral one (e.&. lily for flo"er) Hyperonymy is fre.#ent, 1hereas hyponymy is rare. @(plicitation consists in #sin& an e(planatory ta& for the $Ms and entails te(t internal e(pansions in vario#s de&rees. 4t is the most fre.#ent translation strate&y. /dditions consist in #sin&+ % footnotes % endnotes % &lossaries % translator"prefaces'postscripts =ein& te(t e(ternal+ they are not part of the te(t and incl#de commentaries of specific feat#res. $hey are 9primarily literal, bein& &#ided by the so#rce te(t and c#lt#re: (Koller#p 277 + 1D2). )refaces are free % created by the translator as part of his'her role of a mediator bet1een the t1o -3s. $hey are meant only for the $Ms ' tar&et a#dience. Non%reali?ation ' omissions seem to be 9illo&ical since a te(t cannot <omit" anythin&: (Koller#p 277 + 1D2). Non%reali?ation sit#ations are those sit#ations in 1hich the translator 9ass#mes the ori&inal 1ord, phrase, sentence or passa&e 1ill be incomprehensible to the $Ms, and 1ill re.#ire too lon& an e(planation. Iords and passa&es may be s6ipped by accident or deliberately: (id., ibid., emphasis added). 3ompensation consists in insertin& somethin& 9similar:'appro(imate at another place in the $$, 1hich is related to the c#lt#ral dimension of the conte(t. 4t is #sed for 1ords'e(pressions that cannot be rendered in the $-3. 3ompensation is also closely related to e.#ivalence+ it is, to a certain e(tent, literal (li6e non%reali?ation, it is a free strate&y). 7!

*.&.3. The translation strategies s%ggeste' 6, ?ona Ba-er0 $ranslation by a more &eneral 1ord (s#perordinate) X one of the commonest translation strate&ies in none.#ivalence sit#ations, 1ith propositional meanin& $ranslation by a more ne#tral ' less e(pressive 1ord $ranslation by c#lt#ral s#bstit#tion $ranslation #sin& a loan 1ord or a loan 1ord pl#s e(planation $ranslation by a paraphrase #sin& a related 1ord $ranslation by a paraphrase #sin& #nrelated 1ords $ranslation by omission $ranslation by ill#stration

$ranslation by a more &eneral 1ord (s#perordinate) X one of the commonest translation strate&ies in none.#ivalence sit#ations, 1ith propositional meanin&+ e.&. The cream is easy to apply# This shampoo is easy to put on the hair# 2ash the hair "ith this shampoo# This is a dry area# $ranslation by a more ne#tral'less e(pressive 1ord+ e.&. mumble (a morm:i, @ndruga, bolborosi) home ( house a synonyms and the Momanian e.#ivalents % modifiers+ s"eet home, big house $ranslation by c#lt#ral s#bstit#tion consists in replacin& a c#lt#re%specific 1ord 'e(pression 1ith a $- 1ord that does not have the same propositional meanin&. 4t 1ill have the same impact on the $Ms since they 1ill be able to identify somethin& familiar. 92n an individ#al level, the translator"s decision to #se this strate&y 1ill lar&ely depend on+ a) ho1 m#ch licence is &iven to him'her by those 1ho commission the translation

7D

b) the p#rpose of the translation.: (=a6er 1992+ >1) 92n a more &eneral level, the decision 1ill also reflect, to some e(tent, the norms of translation prevailin& in a &iven comm#nity. -in&#istic comm#nities vary in the e(tent to 1hich they tolerate strate&ies that involve si&nificant depart#re from the propositional meanin& of the te(t.: (id., ibid., emphasis added) e.&. cream tea has no e.#iv. in other c#lt#res (an afternoon meal5 tea and scones 1ith ;am and clotted cream5 it can also incl#de sand1iches and ca6es5 a very appro(imate e.#iv.+ the 4talian pastry 8 only a type of food). bitchA 8 4t. porca (literally, the female of s"ine for 1omen+ #nchastity (e(pressive meanin&) conservatory 8 &reen ho#se (;orning coffee is served in the conservatory (emphasis on the evo6ed meanin&, not on the propositional one). $he translator #ses the loan 1ord on its o1n, 1itho#t an e(planation, for the ed#cated $M 1ho 6no1s the @ cream%tea c#stom. @.#ivalents in a bac6 translation (=a6er 1992)+ % English style tea saloon (from a 8rench te(t) % cream ca.es and tea (from a Japanese te(t) S#ch .#estions as the follo1in& may arise+ /re they really e.#ivalentsJ Ko they have the same meanin&J $ranslation #sin& a loan 1ord or a loan 1ord pl#s e(planation is possible 1ith c#lt#re specific 1ords, modern concepts and b#?? 1ords. $he fact sho#ld be mentioned that if the loan 1ord is repeated, it is #sed on its o1n+ e.&. cream tea $ranslation by a paraphrase #sin& a related 1ord is performed 1hen a very fre.#ent 1ord in the S- is le(icali?ed in a different form in the $-+ e.&. related to % have a .inship relation terraced gardens % gardens created in a terraceK $ranslation by paraphrase #sin& #nrelated 1ords X 1hen the S- 1ord e(presses a concept 1hich is not le(icali?ed at all in the $-. 4t consists in modifyin& a s#perordinate and in #npac6in& the meanin& of the S- 1ord+ e.&. have a totally integrated operation X carry out all steps of production (<a.er *++V: W+

interact causally 8 influence each other mutually areas most accessible to 8 "here human beings enter most easily (<a.er *++V: -X 9$he main advanta&e of the paraphrase strate&y is that it achieves a hi&h level of precision in specifyin& propositional meanin&. 2ne of its disadvanta&es is that a paraphrase does not have the stat#s of a le(ical item and therefore cannot convey e(pressive, evo6ed, or any 6ind of associative meanin&. @(pressive and evo6ed meanin&s are associated only 1ith stable le(ical items 1hich have a history of rec#rrence in specific conte(ts. / second disadvanta&e is that it is c#mbersome and a161ard to #se beca#se it involves feelin& a one%item slot 1ith an e(planation consistin& of several items.: (=a6er 1992+ !7, emphasis added) $ranslation by omission is recommended+ a) 1hen the meanin& conveyed by a 1ord or e(pression is not very important and distracts the reader 1ith very lon& e(planations5 b) 1hen it does not affect fl#ency and readability. 0ention sho#ld be made that this strate&y 1ill brin& abo#t some loss of meanin&. $ranslation by ill#stration is preferred 1hen a S- 1ord referrin& to a physical entity 1hich can be ill#strated does not have an e.#ivalent in the $-. *.&.5. Strategies %se' in translating i'io"s (=a6er 1992)+

Ssin& an idiom of similar meanin& and form Ssin& an idiom similar in meanin& b#t 1ith a different form $ranslation by paraphrase $ranslation by omission $ranslation by compensation

Ssin& an idiom of similar meanin& and form consists in #sin& a $-

idiom 1hich conveys ro#&hly the same meanin& as the S- idiom and incl#din& le(ical e.#ivalent items. S#ch a match is rarely possible+ e.&. to po.e oneNs nose into other peopleNs business force the hand of (the president 77

Ssin& an idiom similar in meanin& b#t 1ith a different form has a hi&h fre.#ency in the lan&#a&e+

e.&. one good turn deserves another (Such a species is very much at home in this area# feel the force of oneNs fist to ma.e things hot for smb $ranslation by paraphrase is the most common strate&y. 4t is #sed 91hen a match cannot be fo#nd in the $- or 1hen it seems inappropriate to #se idiomatic lan&#a&e in the $$ beca#se of the differences in stylistic preferences of the S- and $-: (=a6er 1992+ 7!, emphasis added)+ e.&. to push a (another pony past the post 8 favour another candidate (in a bac. translation from 4rench ! help another competitor to reach the end of a race (in a bac. translation from 5rabic to get a handle on 8 to master $ranslation by omission is referred to by =a6er (1992+ 77) to be #sed 1hen an idiom a) has no close match in the $b) its meanin& cannot be paraphrased c: for stylistic reasons. $ranslation by compensation consists in either omittin& or playin& do1n the feat#re of idiomacity 1here it occ#rs in the te(t and ma6in& #p for it some1here else in the $$. $ranslatin& idioms depends on+ the e(istence of an idiom 1ith a similar meanin& the $-5 the si&nificance of the specific le(ical items ma6in& #p the idiom5 the appropriateness or inappropriateness of #sin& idiomatic lan&#a&e in a &iven re&ister in the $-5 the conte(t in 1hich a &iven idiom is translated.

7B

$he main res#lt 1ill be that #sin& 9the typical phraseolo&y of the $- X its nat#ral collocations, its o1n fi(ed and semi%fi(ed e(pressions, the right le)el of i'io"acit,, and so on X 1ill &reatly enhance the rea'a6ilit, of yo#r translations. Aettin& this level ri&ht means that yo#r $$ 1ill feel less <forei&n" and, other factors bein& e.#al, may even pass for an ori&inal: (=a6er 1992+ 7B, emphasis added). *.(. The strateg, of e!plicitation *.(.1. Nefinition of e!plicitation @(plicitation is defined in terms of both translation process and translation prod#ct. 4n terms of process, it is a translation techni.#e involvin& a shift from the S$ in str#ct#re or meanin& and a techni.#e of 9resolvin& ambi&#ity, improvin& and increasin& cohesiveness of the S$ and of addin& lin&#istic and e(tra%lin&#istic information: ()cpai 277!+ 1!D). 4n terms of prod#ct, e(plicitation is 9a te(t feat#re contrib#tin& to a hi&her level of e(plicitness in comparison 1ith non%translated te(ts: (id., ibid.). $he term e(plicitation 1as first #sed by Cinay and Karbelnet (19DB, 199D) as a translation techni.#e involvin& the insertion in the $- of information 1hich is only implicit in the S-, b#t retrievable from the conte(t. $he amplification of the ori&inal semantic elements is most fre.#ent. /dditions are #sed to render them e(plicit in the $$. =l#m%O#l6a (19B + 19) first considered e(plicitation to be a feat#re of translation. 4t is #sed d#e to the constraints imposed by the translatin& process, on the one hand, and to the interpretation performed by the translator on the S$, on the other. -i6e all the other strate&ies, it may e(ert a stron&er effect than the stylistic preferences specific to the t1o lan&#a&es in contact. $he e(plicitation hypothesis (@H) 1as p#t for1ard by =l#m%O#l6a (19B + 21). $his hypothesis points o#t the idea that the rise in the level of e(plicitness in the $$ may be a #niversal strate&y, #sed in any 6ind of lan&#a&e mediation, translation incl#ded. $his hypothesis 9post#lates: an observed cohesive e(plicitness from S- to $- te(ts re&ardless of the increase traceable to differences bet1een the t1o lin&#istic and te(t#al systems involved (id., ibid.).4t may apply to both 1ritten and oral translation. $he essential idea is that the translator'interpreter renders 9implicit forms more e(plicitly: (Shlesin&er 199D+ 217).

79

0ost theorists (=l#m%O#l6a 19B , Ola#dy 199 , =a6er 199D, 199 , Shlesin&er 199D, dveres 199B, 2lohan and =a6er 2777) consider that e(plicitation is #sed to ma6e shifts in the cohesive ties, render ambi&#o#s $$ items by disambi&#ated $$ items. $h#s, the $$ 1ill be easy to #nderstand, disambi&#ated, better str#ct#red and better or&ani?ed. 3onse.#ently, it 1ill be more readable. dveres enriches the lin&#istic notion of e(plicitation as it has been proposed by =l#m%O#l6a on the basis of limited S$ and $$ analyses. She considered a variety of factors 1hich can ma6e e(plicitation necessary+ 1) the shifts ca#sed by the differences bet1een S$ and $$ #n terms of &rammatical r#les5 2) the need for a hi&her level of e(plicitness at the syntactic level5 >) collocability5 !) the shifts res#ltin& from c#lt#re% bo#nd translation norms5 D) the shifts re.#ired by the constraints of the mediatin& process of translation (comparative analysis, e.&. omission or insertion of some items, preference for the #se of certain items, preference for certain forms etc.). 4n analysin& a translated te(t, i.e. st#dyin& translation as a prod#ct, entirely in the $- environment, s#&&estions can only be bro#&ht for1ard re&ardin& the possible ca#ses that may have determined the choice of certain patterns. 3onsiderin& the str#ct#ral differences bet1een @n&lish and Momanian, the translation process involves e(plicitation strate&ies. 4n the translatin& process, the aims of the translated te(t, the context in 1hich it 1as prod#ced, and the readership it addresses are to be considered first. $h#s, a translated te(t is 9normally constrained by a f#lly developed and artic#lated te(t in another lan&#a&e: (=a6er 199 + 177). *.(.&. Nat%re an' for"s of e!plicitation @(plicitation has been considered a professional strate&y or a by%prod#ct of lan&#a&e mediation (=l#m%O#l6a 19B , Shlesin&er 199D, =a6er 199 , 2lohan and =a6er 2777), on the one hand, and in terms of sentence len&th (=a6er 199 ), cohesive ties (=l#m%O#l6a 19B , =a6er 199 , Shlesin&er 199D, 2lohan and =a6er 2777), lo&ical ties (Shlesin&er 199D, =a6er 199 ), better readability ($o#ry 199D), p#nct#ation and theme relation, on the other. 4t has also been disc#ssed in terms of topic (Sf&#inot 19BB) and optional that (2lohan and =a6er 2777).

B7

/mon& the te(t fest#res, cohesive devices are most fre.#ently investi&ated. $hey offer insi&hts into the nat#re of e(plicitation. $he n#mber of cohesive lin6s is considered to be m#ch hi&her 1ith technical and scientific te(ts. /s a res#lt, the de&ree of e(plicitness in s#ch te(ts is hi&her than that of literary te(ts. *.(.(. E!plicitation strategies Ola#dy (199 , 199B) identifies fo#r cate&ories of e(plicitation strate&ies+ 1) obli&atory e(plicitations, re.#ired by the str#ct#ral differences bet1een lan&#a&es5 2) optional e(plicitations, re.#ired by the differences in te(t%b#ildin& strate&ies and stylistic preferences5 >) pra&matic e(plicitations, re.#ired by the c#lt#ral differences bet1een S$ and $$5 !) translation%inherent e(plicitations 1hich are necessary in the translatin& process. /mon& the e(plicitation strate&ies, additions and specifications lead to increased cohesion. /dditions are referred to as the insertion in the translation of &rammatical or le(ical items not present in the S$, 1hich renders the $$ more e(plicit. Specifications are the e(pansion or s#bstit#tion in the translation of &rammatical and le(ical items present in the S$, 1hich res#lts in &reater e(plicitness. $here are shifts from s#bstit#tion to le(ical repetition. $he translator may not rely on the anaphoric reference of s#bstit#tion altho#&h it 9is a so#rce of cohesion 1ith 1hat has &one before: (Halliday and Hasan 197 + 97). 8or stylistic effect, (s)he may replace it by a stron&er cohesive tie, or may ma6e #se of a combination of the t1o (see /ppendi(). -e(ical repetition is tho#&ht to be one of the translation #niversals (=a6er ed. 199B+ 2BB). $ranslators #se le(ical repetitions to establish or stren&then cohesion in S$. Ho1ever, there are sit#ations 1hen le(ical repetition may lead to red#ndancy (=l#m% O#l6a). Mepetition may also be avoided in order to create a clear $$ sentence. /ll th#s #s #n accordance 1ith the fact that 9cohesion is part of the system of the lan&#a&e FGH and is b#ilt into the lan&#a&e itself: (Halliday and Hasan 197 + D). $herefore, shifts occ#r in each type of cohesive devices in the S$. $hey are replaced by different cohesive ties in the @n&lish translated te(t (@$$). =esides, the shifts in p#nct#ation mar6s can be 9part of a s#bconscio#s strate&y to ma6e thin&s easier,

B1

simpler, by ma6in& them more clear%c#t: (=a6er 199 + 1B2). 4n other 1ords, it is possible that the translator"s #ltimate aim is to ma6e thin&s clear%c#t and more cohesive. 3onse.#ently, 9a simpler and easier%to%read te(t is the conse.#ence of this strate&y: ()cpai 277!+ 1D1). 8#rthermore, additional lin&#istic and e(tralin&#istic information is &iven by the translator to ma6e comprehension easier. /mbi&#o#s S$ items are rendered by disambi&#ated $$ items. $h#s, the S$ is modified by the translator so as to disambi&#ate and me the $$ easy to #nderstand, better str#ct#red and more readable, ta6in& into consideration the $- norms. *.(.*. ?etho's $he corp#s selected for o#r investi&ation consists of t1o s#b%corpora p#blished in different epochs+ 0. Sadovean#"s novel <altagul, a masterpiece of the Momanian literat#re and an e(ceptional poem of nat#re and of man"s so#l, 1ritten in 19>>, and its translation, The Gatchet, prod#ced by a professional translator, @#&enia 8arca, in 19B>. $herefore, there 1ere t1o s#b%corpora+ 1) the s#b%corpora of the ori&inal Momanian novel (2M3), and 2) the s#b%corpora of its translation into @n&lish ($@3), prod#ced by an established p#blishin& ho#se. 2ne of the criteria for selectin& this novel 1as the e(istence of an @n&lish translation of another novel 1ritten by 0. Sadovean#, i.e. 7reanga de aur g The Eolden <ough, also prod#ced by the same professional translator, in 19B1. /nother criterion 1as the comparison of the t1o translated novels that represented t1o @n&lish comparable corpora (@33). /s a matter of fact, the last step of o#r analysis foc#sed on the de&ree of e(plicitness as manifested in the te(t#al feat#res of the t1o translated novels. 4n selectin& the te(ts for investi&ation, the overall intention and the first theoretical consideration 1as to ill#strate more e(plicitation strate&ies. Space 1ill allo1 for 9 te(ts only consistin& of >2 sentences yieldin& over 777 r#nnin& 1ords.

*.(.1. Nisc%ssion 4n the first sta&e of o#r analysis, the e(plicitation strate&ies 1ere detected, i.e. the types of shifts made by the translator not only as re&ards the shifts in cohesion b#t also

B2

the additions made, consistin& in additional lin&#istic and e(tralin&#istic information. $hey 1ere analysed on a te(t%to%te(t basis, i.e. the analysis 1as made on the t1o parallel s#b%corpora. $he basic idea 1as to find the modifications of the S$. @(plicitation strate&ies detected in the t1o parallel corpora (M@3)
1. -evels Shifts -o&ical 1. p#nct#ation ($$2, >, !, , 7) a) addition of p#nct#ation mar6s b) modification of p#nct#ation mar6s 2. collocability ($$1, D, , B, 9) >. le(ical repetitions ($$!, ) !. non%symmetrical
,7

/r&#ment' 8eat#res % $- style % conscio#s strate&y % specific Sl vs $- str#ct#res

reasons 2. le(ico% &rammatical

&rammatical

str#ct#res ($$1, !, D, >. syntactic

) % str#ct#ral non%e.#ivalence bet1een S- and $into

,7

D. &ap fillin& (fillin& elliptical str#ct#res) . additions of con;#nctions (a hi&her fre.#ency of connectives) ($$>, !, 7. conversion of
, 7, 9

) )

s#bordinate )

syntactic

differences

coordinate cla#ses and viceversa ($$D, B. lon&er sentences ($$!, D,

, 7, B

bet1een S- and $% ma6in& e(plicit in the $$ 1hat 1as implicit in the S$ % conscio#s strate&ies % ad;#stment to the conventions % matchin& the $- &enre'style dimensions % conscio#s strate&ies $-

9. e(planatory synta&ms ($$D, 7, B, 9) !. te(t#al D. e(tralin&#istic 17. shifts in the type of cohesion mar6ers to achieve &reater transparency ($$>, 12. le(ical e(planation ($$1, 2, >, D, 7, B) 1>. amplifications' sit#ational information ($$>) 1!. additions of information to e(plain the c#lt#re%specific elements ($$B)
,7

11. improved topic%comment lin6s ($$ )

/dditions, repetitions and disambi&#ation strate&ies #sed for a hi&her level of e(plicitness and readability of the $$+ 1. insertion of 1ords 1hich are absent in the St g e(pansion of the $$ ($$2, >, D, 2. insertion of e(planations ($$1, 2, >, !, D, 7, B)5 >. e(pansions of condensed passa&es ($$>)5 B>
, 7, B

)5

!. addition of modifiers and .#alifiers to achieve the re.#ired effect ($$ )5 D. addition of con;#nctions for &reater transparency ($$!,
, 7, 9

)5

. #se of inter;ections+ a) to e(press the character"s tho#&hts5 b) for emphasis ($$>)5 7. addition of bac6&ro#nd information in the $$ to fill in a c#lt#ral &ap ($$>, B)5 B. repetition of previo#s details for the p#rpose of clarity ($$!)5 9. repetition or the #se of a synonym ($$!)5 17. precise renderin&s of implicit va&#e data ($$>, 7) 11. more acc#rate descriptions ($$2, >,
, 7, B

)5

12. disambi&#ation of prono#ns 1ith precise forms of identification ($$7). 4n the second sta&e, e(plicitness 1as analysed as manifested in the $$s. 4n the third sta&e, e(plicitness of these $$s 1as analysed on the 1hole of the t1o comparable corpora, i.e. The Gatchet and The Eolden <ough. )atterns 1ere identified 1hich are specific to @n&lish irrespective of the S-, as 1ell as patterns specific to Momanian 1hich have no @n&lish symmetrical e.#ivalent and are rendered by a hi&her n#mber or 1ords. $he types of additions 1ere analysed+ 1) additions and modifications of p#nct#ation mar6s ($$2,>,!, ,7)5 2) additions of con;#&ations ($$>,!, ,7,9)5 >) additions of adverbs ($$D)5 !) additions of inter;ections ($$>,!)5 D) additions of relative prono#ns ($$2,D)5 ) additions of attrib#tive cla#ses, either mar6ed ($$2) or #nmar6ed ($$!)5 7) additions of information to e(plain the c#lt#re%specific elements ($$B). $he analysis of strate&ies at the le(ico%&rammatical level is based on Halliday and Hasan"s (197 ) typolo&y of cohesive devices. $he type of &rammatical parallel str#ct#res 1as established in analysin& the t1o s#b%corpora.

*.(.2. Fin'ings $he findin&s s#&&ested that the shifts in cohesive ties consisted in replacin& them by different (in some sit#ations very different) cohesive ties in the @n&lish $$s on the same level.

B!

$he shifts also incl#ded elliptical str#ct#res, s#bstit#tions and le(ical repetitions ($$!), or avoidance of le(ical repetition ($$!) 1hich mi&ht lead to red#ndancy. @(pansions 1ere very fre.#ent in all te(ts, especially in $$1,2,D, ,7,B. S#ch shifts may be tri&&ered by a n#mber of factors s#ch as the translator"s conscio#s or #nconscio#s e(plicitation strate&y, style, &enre conventions, translation norms etc. $o s#m #p, the shifts in the cohesive ties, the additions and the e(pansions #sed by the translator made the sentence in the @$$s m#ch lon&er than those in the M2$s. $he n#mber of r#nnin& 1ords is m#ch hi&her in the @$$s
2, ,7

, almost do#ble in the @$$s

>,!,B

$he addition of e(tralin&#istic information to e(plain the Momanian c#lt#re%specific elements 1as very #sef#l, ma6in& the te(t m#ch easier to #nderstand. $he conse.#ence 1as a better str#ct#red and more readable te(t. $herefore, the relationship bet1een e(plicitness and readability 1as relevant for the analysis. $o concl#de, the e(plicitation strate&ies lead to a hi&her level of e(plicitness in the @$$. $his also means that e(plicitation is a #niversal feat#re of translated te(ts.

/ppendi(+ $he te(ts selected to ill#strate the e(plicitation strate&ies

Baltag%l de 0ihail Sadovean# S$1+ Ontorcea #n ?^mbet fr#mos ca de fatU Qi abia ]ncepea sM$i Dnfiere<e m#stUcioara FGH S$2+ /farU se vedea pUd#rea %Jor ninsM# s%6t %n cer al6astr% Ji Dnsorit 'e "oinM FGH S$>+ /m &Usit st#h ]nalt Qi voinic. /m d#rat perdele ca pe trei ierni. /m sUpat bordeie. Ninspre partea 6anilor a" D"pMcat pe toatU l#mea. /colo ]ncU n#%i iarnU Qi oile mai &Usesc )er'eaKM ]n bahnU. Kisnpre stUp^nii loc#l#i #nii fMcea% g%rM, da" /le(a baci#l a Jti%t ce sM le rMsp%n'M, cUci el e o" p%rtat Qi se &UseQte a cinci?eciQicincea oarU la Ji;ia Qi la )r#t. The 7atchet translated by @#&enia 8arca $$1+ His smile as as char"ing as a yo#n& &irl"s and his mo#stache as E%st 6eginning to sho . FGH (2.2 X 2.!. X !.12 5 2) $$2+ 2#tside, the 1ood co#ld be seen, co)ere' ith a slight sprin-ling of sno that as tha ing in the s%n %n'er a 6l%e s-,. FGH (1.1b X !.125 1, 2, 11) $$>+ 94 fo#nd tall, stron& sed&e an' the shelters 4 made are li-el, to last for three inters. An' 4 d#& m#d%h#ts, 4 satisfie' everybody, gi)ing each his '%e. Iinter has not come there as yet and the sheep still find so"ething to gra<e on in the s1amps.: Some of the meado1 o1ners "a'e 'iffic%lties b#t the shepherd /le(a ans ere' the" fittingl,, for he"s a -no ing "an an' has seen "%ch FGH h, this is the fifty%fifth time he has seen to the Ji;ia and the )r#th. (1.1a, 1.1b, !.12 X !.1>5 1, 2, >, , 7, 17, 11)

BD

S$!+ @# le%am scris ]n condicU la mine. 4ar moQ /le(a r^dea. Pice cU 'e cPn' e el n%a vU?#t oi scrise ]n condicU. 8ata Dn'rM<ni 'e pe scU#naQ#l ei. $ Ce fel 'e oa"eni s%nt pe acoloJ $ Oa"eni ca toKi oa"enii# rPse flUcU#l. % Hori s#ntJ % S#nt. h%apoi m%am s#it ]n tren J$a" "ers# J$a" "ers, p^nU la )iatra. FGH S$D+ StMtea Dntre ei o Dntre6are crPncenM. Aitoria lMsM sM$i treacM )al%l care o DnM6%Jea Qi ?ise ]ncet FGH S$ + N%ar mai fi nevoie, c#m mU sfUt#ieQte ea, sM cerce )rMEi Ji se"ne as%pra mo&^ldeRelor de cearU, sU le ]mp#n&U ochii Qi inima X ca sM rMsp%n'M D"p%nsMt%ra ]n ochii Qi inima aceleia. Cis#l me# e semn mai &re#. FGH $ C%" n% Jtii, bUiete, aJa sM n% te Jtie naca<%rile Ji 6olile. ArUiesc Qi e# ca Qi c#m aQ fi sin&#rU. imi ]nchip#iesc cU Qti# Qi alRii. 3Uci Qi ?i#a Qi noaptea e# mU &^ndesc la alta.

$$!+ 4 1rote do1n their n#mber in my boo6. 2ld /le(a la#&hed, for he said he ha' ne)er in all his li)ing 'a,s seen sheep entered in a boo6. $he &irl still seate' on her stool "a'e 6ol' to as-0 QAn' the "en# hat -in' are the, in those partsJ: QOh# the %s%al -in'#R the yo#n& fello1 ans ere' ith a la%gh. 9/nd do they have dancesJ: Q=h,, yes. /nd then 4 1ent on a train and tra)elle' all the a, to )iatra: FGH (1.1b X 2.> X 2.! X >. X >.B5 2, D, 9) $$D+ A +%estion that 6%rne' in their hearts stoo' 6et een the" =hen she ha' o)erco"e her feelings# Citoria said slo1ly FGH (2.2 X >.B X >.9 X !.12 X 2.! X >.7 5 1,2) $$ + $here"s no need to tr, char"s an' to oron 1a(en fi&#res as she advises5 to pierce eyes and heart, that the sta6s "ight 6e felt in that 1oman"s eyes and heart, 0y dream is a 1ei&htier si&n. FGH (2.2 X 2.> X 2.!) QBless ,o%r innocent heart, my boy, an' "a, ,o% al a,s 6e as innocent an' free of tro%6les an' 'isease. 4 spea6 as if to myself, an' ima&ine that everybody 6no1s 1hat 4 6no1, for 4 thin6 of nothin& else day and ni&ht. (2.! X >. X >.7 X !.17 X !.11 X 1, !, 11 X 1.1b X >. X >.B X D) $$7+ $his 1as a &reat sorro1, altho%gh she ha' ne)er reall, hope' for assistance fro" the +%arter. 8et# she sho%l' fin' a a,. 7er "in' o%l' plan an' the 6o,>s ar" o%l' carr, o%t that plan. 7er sche"es ere still conf%se' 6%t she 1o#ld concentrate #pon the" an' li&ht 1o#ld s%rel, brea6. (1.1.b X 2.! X >. X >.7 X >.B X >.9 X !.17 X !.12 X 1, 2, D, 17, 11, 12) $$B+ $ime seemed motionless, /nd yet she had landmar6s on those Fri'a,s hen she faste' , 1ent 1itho#t food and drin6 and ne)er %ttere' a or'# al-ing ai"slessl,, a blac6 6erchief dra1n over her mo#th. FGH $he Ne1 Eear"s &reetin&s, the symbolic &oat and horse and all the "err,$"a-ing in that o%t$of$ the$ a, "o%ntain settle"ent X she reEecte'. (2.2 X >.B X >.9 X D.12 X D.1! X 1, 2, 7, 11) $$9+ FGH the "asters ere no 'ifferent an' the lan&#a&e had chan&ed, the "en# c%sto"s an' ele"ents ere still the sa"e 5 it 1as therefore fittin& that the children sho%l' enEo, the festi)it,. (2.2 X >. X >.9 X D)

S$7+ /sta era o mare m^hnire. Poate se aJtepta la 'Pnsa. $ot#Qi va &Usi #n mi;loc ca mintea ei sU a;#te Qi braR#l l#i sU l#cre?e. 8iinRa ei ]ncepea sU se concentre?e as#pra acestei %"6re# 'e %n'e treb#ia sU iasU l#minU. FGH

S$B+ $imp#l stUt#. il ]nsemna tot#Qi c% )inerile negre Dn care se p%rta 'e colo$colo , fUrU hranU, fMrM c%)Pnt, c# broboada cernitU peste &#rU. FGH SrUrile de /n#l No#, capra Qi cUl#R#l Qi toatM <)oana Ji )eselia cotlon%l%i acel#ia din m#nte le respinsese 'e cMtrM sine. S$9+ FGH stMpPniri se schi"6aserM, limbile se prefUc#serU, 'ar rPn'%ielile o"%l%i Ji ale stihiilor stMr%iserM5 aQa ]nc^t se c#venea ca Qi copiii sM ai6M partea lor.

the brac6ets incl#de the types of shifts, additions etc.

Concl%sions. / point of vie1 shared by most translation theorists is that the translatin& process is a <transformation" one5 it consists in renderin& the 9spirit:, the meanin& and the style of the ori&inal in the $-, and in 9adaptin&:, it to a ne1 lin&#istic and c#lt#ral matri(. $hat means findin& the best e.#ivalents at the &rammatical, le(ical, semantic and stylistic levels, at the time observin& the $-3 norms. $his implies ad;#stment to the tar&et readers" e(pectations. / translation 1ill be perceived as <1ron&" by a $M if it does not fit the image that the reader prefers to associate 1ith the ori&inal te(t (Holman and =oase X =eier 1991+D). 8ree adaptation consists in achievin& e.#ivalence by a 9transformation: process 1hich preserves the :spirit: of the ori&inal, on the one hand, b#t :alters: the level of the content, and semantic relations bet1een 1ords, as 1ell as the formal level (str#ct#re, or&ani?ation), on the other.

C7APTER 1

B7

INENTIT8 T7ROU;7 TRANSLATION IN LIN;UISTIC ANN CULTURAL NIAERSIT8

1.1. I'entit, an' 9%n:translata6ilit, 1.1.1. I'entit, an' e+%i)alence

4dentity 1as .#estioned in the 19B7"s by 8ra1ley (19B!) startin& from the notion of e.#ivalence. He considered the identity bet1een the so#rce te(t (S$) and the translated'tar&et te(t ($$) 91hether the identity is constr#ed as empirical (absol#te synonymy based on reference), FGH or as lin&#istic (#niversals of lan&#a&e). FGH $here is information only in difference so that translation is a code in its o1n ri&ht, settin& its o1n standards and str#ct#ral pres#ppositions and entailments, tho#&h they are necessarily derivative of the matri( information and tar&et parameters: (8ra1ley 19B!, .td. in Cen#ti 2777, p.21 , emphasis in the ori&inal). /n opinion 1hich is 1orth mentionin& is the poststr#ct#ralists" one. $hey consider translation not as transformin& the forei&n te(t, b#t as bein& 9deconstr#ctive:, as Kerrida (1979, p. 9>) p#ts it. 4n Kerrida"s opinion both the S$ and the $$ are 9derivative and hetero&eneo#s, consistin& of diverse lin&#istic and c#lt#ral materials 1hich destabili?e the 1or6 of si&nification, ma6in& meanin& pl#ral and divided, e(ceedin& and possibly conflictin& 1ith the intentions of the forei&n 1riter and the translator. $ranslation is doomed to inade%uacy because of irreducible differences, not Iust bet"een languages and cultures, but also "ithin them : (Kerrida 1979, .td. in Cen#ti 2777, p. 21B, emphasis added). )oststr#ct#ralist theorists reform#late the concept of e.#ivalence not only in lin&#istic, b#t also in c#lt#ral, historical, ethical and political terms. 4n =erman"s (199D) opinion, a &ood translation ta6es into consideration the lin&#istic and c#lt#ral differences of the S$ by establishin& 9a correspondence: that enriches the tar&et lan&#a&e ($-). /s re&ards identity across lan&#a&es, three ar&#ments are no1 set forth. $he first ar&#ment is referential, e.#atin& identity 1ith semantic e(actness or absol#te synonymy. 4t acco#nts for e.#ivalence in translation. $he second ar&#ment is concept#al and is in favo#r of identity across languages d#e to the fact that all h#mans co&ni?e the

BB

1orld they live in almost the same 1ay. $he third ar&#ment is related to the universals of language that ma.e identity possible, that is there are characteristics shared by all languages# Nevertheless, the identity entailed by the #niversals of lan&#a&e is a matter of lin&#istic competence, 1hereas translation is a matter of lin&#istic performance. $he basic difference is that #niversals are absol#te, 1hereas translation is <#ncertain" beca#se of the str#ct#ral mismatches bet1een the t1o lan&#a&es (codes). $herefore, identity seems to be antithetical to the notion of translation. 3onse.#ently, translation is not only the renderin& of the <semantic essence" in another lan&#a&e. 98or one thin&, that semantic essence is only a small bit of the total information available in the matri( code5 any interlin&#al translation that see6s to transfer only semantics has lost before it has be&#n. 8or another thin&, placin& that semantic information #nder the constraints of another semiotic code (literally do#ble%codin& it) inevitably binds it to that ne1 code and hence the interlin&#al translation, lon& steeped in the preservation of somethin& (meanin&, content, etc.), act#ally &ains from the recodin& since there is information only in difference, and the differential codin&, the recodin&, is 1hat allo1s the interlin&#al translation to prod#ce any information at all: (Cen#ti 2777, p. 2D7). /ccordin& to Hall (199 , .td. in 4rimia 277>, p. 7!), identities are 9constr#cted 1ithin, not o#tside the disco#rse, therefore 1e need to #nderstand them as prod#ced in specific historical and instit#tional sites 1ithin specific disc#rsive formations and practices by specific en#nciative strate&ies:. -an&#a&es differ essentially in 1hat they "%st convey, and not in 1hat they "a, convey (Cen#ti 2777, p. 11!, Hatim and 0#nday 277 , p. 12 ). 0oreover, the translator has to render e(actly not only also ho hat is said, b#t it is said, i.e. both the content and the style have to be considered. /ccordin& to A#tt (1991, 2777), this

can be made possible 1ith vario#s de&rees of appro!i"ation. $he main idea is that the essential relationship bet1een the S$ and the $$ is based on the resemblance of their intended interpretations. 4n Ja6obson"s (19D9'2777, .td. in Cen#ti, 2777, p. 11>) opinion, 9on the level of interlin&#al translation, there is ordinarily no full e%uivalence bet1een code%#nits, 1hile messa&es may serve as ade.#ate interpretations of alien code%#nits or messa&es:. $he relativity of the concept of e.#ivalence 1as pointed o#t by Ooller (199D). 4n his opinion, e.#ivalence is a 9relative concept in several respects+ it is determined, on the one hand, by the historical%c#lt#ral conditions #nder 1hich te(ts are prod#ced and received in the tar&et c#lt#re, and on the other, by a ran&e of sometimes contradictory and scarcely reconcilable lin&#istic%te(t#al and e(tralin&#istic factors and conditions: (Ooller 199D+191). S#ch factors incl#de+ 1) the structural properties, possibilities and constraints of the S-, on the one hand, and of the $-, on the other5 2) the linguistic and stylistic properties of the S$, on the one hand, and of the $$, on the other, observin& the norms of the S- and of the $- conte(t, respectively5 >) the different realities and the 1ays of representin& them in the $-5 !) comprehensibility of the $$ the $Ms" perception of the translation prod#ct5 D intelli&ibility, fl#ency and readability of the $$5 ) the translator"s #nderstandin& of the S$5 7) the translator"s competence and creativity5 B) the p#rpose of the translation.

B9

3onsiderin& all these factors, it is obvio#s that translation e.#ivalence is conditioned by a double-lin.age+ the lin6 1ith the S$, on the one hand, and the lin6 1ith the comm#nicative conditions of the $Ms, on the other. @.#ivalence is also conditioned by the de&ree of observin& the re.#irements of the relational frame1or6s. $h#s, it is proved by the correspondence bet1een the S$ translational #nits and the $- e.#ivalents. 4n other 1ords, 9both the similarities and the differences bet1een the #nits in the S- and their $- e.#ivalents res#lt from the de&ree to 1hich the val#es assi&ned to the relational frame1or6s are preserved: (Ooller 199D, p. 19!, Hatim and 0#nday 277 , p. 171). $h#s, e.#ivalence as difference (Ja6obson 19D9'2777) is the problem of lan&#a&e and the main concern of lin&#istics. 1.1.&. Co"prehensi6ilit, an' 9%n:translata6ilit, 4t is &enerally accepted that any comparison of t1o lan&#a&es implies an e(amination of their m#t#al translatability. 4n this respect, bilin&#al dictionaries, as 1ell as comparative%contrastive &rammars are needed 1hich sho#ld define 1hat #nifies and 1hat differentiates the t1o lan&#a&es. @.#ivalence relations are considered by =ea#&rande (197B, p. BB) in terms of the translation bein& 9a valid representative of the ori&inal in the comm#nicative act in .#estion:. 2r, as Ooller p#ts it, 9bet1een the res#ltant te(t in -2 (the $- te(t) and the S$ in -1 (the S- te(t) there e(ists a relationship 1hich can be desi&nated as a translational>, or e%uivalence, relation: (Ooller 199D, p. 19 , o#r emphasis). 4n all the processes of maintainin& and transmission of identity, lan&#a&e is the main vector of comm#nication beca#se st#dies of lan&#a&e #se reveal ho1 all forms of c#lt#re emer&e from everyday lin&#istic interactions that are shaped by socio%c#lt#ral formations (see /ppendi(). 2n the one hand, lin&#istic feat#res can be 9po1er levers: in themselves, as 8airclo#&h (199D, p.2) p#ts it. 4n addition, a disc#rsive event is shaped by lan&#a&e 9feeds into it, shapes and restr#ct#res it: (4bid, p. 17), and so are the disco#rsal practices specific to the S- and $-. 2n the other hand, it is from aspects of lan&#a&e that the debates on (#n)translatability and comprehensibility start (see /ppendi().

$he idea that translatability and comprehensibility have to be considered in relative terms has lately &ained &ro#nd. $he t1o principles are in conflict, one e(cl#din& the other. $hat is to say, if the translator insists on f#ll translatability, the $$ 1ill be incomprehensible, conf#sin&. 2n the other hand, if the translator insists on f#ll comprehensibility, this 1ill mean that the translation is on an e.#al footin& 1ith the S$, or that the $$ may be considered ori&inal.
>

translational is opposed to ori&inal 1ritin&

97

Iith sit#ations of #ntranslatability, the translator tries to find an ade.#ate e.#ivalent, or may replace it 1ith a paraphrase to render its meanin& in the $- or may even drop it on condition this does not affect the meanin& of the sentence in the S$. /s @co says, 9FGH if, o#t of ten or t1enty terms, one proves absol#tely #ntranslatable, 4 a#thori?e the translator to drop it+ a catalo&#e is still a catalo&#e, even if there are only ei&hteen terms instead of t1enty: (@co 277>, p. !>). $he three important criteria, i.e. efficienc,# co"prehension of intent and si"ilarit, of response can never be separated from one another and are essential in #nderstandin& and eval#atin& translations (see /ppendi(). $he relationship bet1een the S$ and the $$ is very m#ch infl#enced by the comm#nicative re.#irements of the te(t receiver and by the p#rpose of the translation (see /ppendi(). $his relationship is closely related to translatability and comprehensibility raisin& .#estions of e.#ivalence+ ',na"ic and for"al. 8ormal e.#ivalence is considered a 9conte(t#ally motivated method of translation (i.e. a procedure p#rposef#lly selected in order to preserve a certain lin&#istic rhetorical effect): (Hatim and 0#nday 277 , p. !2, emphasis in the ori&inal). $he translator has a &ood reason to ma6e his choice in favo#r of formal e.#ivalence 1hich 91ill brin& the $Ms nearer to the linguistic or cultural preferences of the ST: (ibidem, emphasis added). Nevertheless, it may often happen that a form is not transparent eno#&h for the $Ms to #nderstand it, hence, the $$ comprehensibility is affected. 4n s#ch cases, the translator"s intervention is necessary by ad;#stments to 1hich e(planations are added. 4n this respect, dynamic e.#ivalence opposes formal e.#ivalence or str#ct#ral correspondence, and is related to the conte(t#al val#es and effects 1hich a literal translation compromises. Ooller"s (199D) model of e.#ivalence is variable and fle(ible in acco#ntin& for relationships bet1een comparable elements in the S- and $-. 8#rthermore, textual e%uivalence is obtained not bet1een the lan&#a&es themselves at the level of the lin&#istic system, b#t bet1een real te(ts at the level of te(t in conte(t. 4 a&ree 1ith Hatim and 0#nday (277 ) that the most concrete set of criteria applied to the decision%ma6in& process in order to ma6e it effective seems to be &ro#nded in text-type. 0oreover, the decision%ma6in& is 9partially s#b;ect to system criteria s#ch as &rammar, and partially to conte(t#al factors s#rro#ndin& the #se of lan&#a&e in a &iven te(t: (ibid, p. DD). /s far as the process of restr#ct#rin& is concerned, it is m#ch more diffic#lt than the S-$ analysis, beca#se it depends on the str#ct#res of the $-, on the one hand, and on the stylistic level at 1hich it has to be performed, on the other.

91

$h#s, shifts from one of the three principal alternatives, i.e. formal, informal and technical, to another are the res#lt of mis#nderstandin& the ori&inal intent of the messa&e and lead to mistranslation (see /ppendi(). 4n addition to its formal dimension, restr#ct#rin& also has a f#nctional or dynamic dimension 1hich is related to impact. $he impact of the $$ is cr#cial, beca#se a translation is ;#d&ed to be 9ade.#ate only 1hen and if the response of the $Ms is satisfactory: (ibid, p. 1 >). $h#s, translation is 9reprod#cin& in the receptor lan&#a&e the closest natural e%uivalent of the message of the source language, first in terms of meaning, and second in terms of style: (ibidem, emphasis added). 1.&. I'entit,# constraints an' creati)it, 3onsiderin& the idea that there is no land 1itho#t constraints, translation seems to be seen as more heavily constrained than ori&inal 1ritin&. 9=oth ori&inal 1ritin& and translation are often constrained by the need to preserve ill#sion, tho#&h this is not a characteristic of all 1ritin&+ =recht, Joyce, 0eredith, Sha6espeare and many others have specifically dra1n attention to the te(t itself and th#s to its stat#s as an instr#ment for creatin& the ill#sion of reality: (Holman and =oase%=eier 1999, p. D). $he more comple( the translatin& process and the type of te(t, the &reater the n#mber of constraints. $he constraints are ca#sed, on the one hand, by mismatches at the levels of &rammar, le(is, semantics, pra&matics, disco#rse, stylistics, c#lt#re, and by fail#re in balancin& freedom 1ith fidelity and the translator"s 6no1led&e, beliefs and bac6&ro#nd, on the other. /ll these constraints determine the translator to find sol#tions to overcome them and &ive rise to his creativity. $he 1ord constraint has ne&ative connotations+ comp#lsion, lac6 of freedom, lac6 of permission to e(press individ#ality, and s#bmission to e(ternal press#re. Ho1ever, there is no discipline, balance, meas#re 1itho#t restrictions or constraints, 1hich is the other <side of the coin", the positive one, pres#pposin& art, creativity. $here is a close connection bet1een creativity and the constraints 1hich both mo#ld and en&ender it. $here are also differences consistin& in the lin&#istic, c#lt#ral, social and political constraints &enerally specific to translation, on the one hand, and in the special type of creativity specific to re%1ritin& the ori&inal in the $-3, on the other, since it is the constraints themselves that &ive rise to ne1 creativity. $herefore, constraints are essential in achievin& a creative translation. $o p#t it differently, creative 1ritin& 1o#ld not be possible 1itho#t formal constraints. $h#s, the relationship bet1een the 1riter"s creative achievement and the translator"s creativity is disc#ssed in

92

terms of constraints. Ho1ever, these constraints are different+ the 1riter is s#b;ect to constraints imposed by literary tradition, political vie1s, lin&#istic characteristics of the speech comm#nity, social vie1s, te(t#al constraints, etc., 1hereas the translator is s#b;ect, on the one hand, to the model of the S-$ and to the constraints imposed by the $-3 and its environment, on the other. 4n addition, 9the translator"s hierarchy of aims 1ill constrain and colo#r the re%created so#rce lan&#a&e te(t 9(ibidem). 8#rthermore, creativity is 9not seen merely as a force or flo1 of ener&y 1hich is channelled and formed by constraint, b#t rather as somethin& 1hose e(istence is indissol#bly tied to the e(istence of formal constraint: (ibid, p. 7). Ie have to consider all this closely connected 1ith the intelligibility, fluency and readability of the $$. /s re&ards the criterion of intelligibility, it re.#ires that the $$ sho#ld be #nderstood by the $Ms in accordance 1ith the intention of the S$. $hat is to say, from the $Ms" perspective, the si&nificance of the information in the S$ sho#ld be clearly reco&ni?able (criterion of visibility), easy to &rasp f#nctionally and conte(t#ally (decodification criterion) and to render it acc#rately (criterion of relocatability). 8inally, the fl#ency and readability of the $$ remind #s of Nida"s 9nat#ralness of e(pression:, 1ho, three decades and a half a&o, s#&&ested the concept of dynamic e.#ivalence+ 9a translation of dynamic e.#ivalence aims at complete nat#ralness of e(pression: (Nida, 19 !, p. 1D9). $his is to prod#ce in the $Ms a similar response (Nida, 19 !, p. 1 >, Cen#ti 277B, p. 1 ). $o concl#de, the translator has to discover the $Ms" interests and needs and loo6 for creative options to satisfy the re.#irements of both te(ts, at the same time preservin& identity. $ranslatin& identity sho#ld observe certain standards 1hich s#rpass lan&#a&e and national bo#ndaries, on the one hand, and c#lt#ral barriers, on the other (see /ppendi( X 6dentity and (un translatability).

APPENNIS $ INENTIT8 ANN 9UN:TRANSLATABILIT8

ST s%rface str%ct%res Nifferences 6et een SL an' TT str%ct%res Restr%ct%ring Use of TL specific str%ct%res an' ling%istic for"s

9>

ST

9%n: translata6ilit, intentionalit, "essage content an' pac-age

Lang%age $ an i'entit, in'icator 9interactional %se of 'isc%rsi)e co""%nicati)e practices: Translation strategies ?eaning e+%i)alence Efficienc, Co"prehension of intent Si"ilarit, of response

Ling%isticall, constr%cte' i'entit,

SLC

constraints 6ac-gro%n'

The translator>s ling%istic an' c%lt%ral co"petence The translator>s role of a "e'iator# Blocali<er># an' Bc%lt%rali<er> C%lt%ral a'aptationC A'E%st"ent 'o"estication Translation shifts

C%lt%rall, constr%cte' i'entit,

constraints 6ac-gro%n' re+%ire"ents p%rpose of the translation

TLC

co""%nicati)e

e!pectations nee's co"prehensi6ilit, the Ben' 4%ser> the Bne!t$%ser>

TRs>

f%nction an' rea'ership TT creati)it, intelligi6ilit,

fl%enc, rea'a6ilit,

9!

BIBLIO;RAP78 Ja6obson, Moman (2777). 92n -in&#istic /spects of $ranslation.: 19D9. pp 11>% 119. $ranslation St#dies Meader. (2nd @dition). -. Cen#ti. Ne1 Eor6+ Mo#tled&e.

9D

0#nday, Jeremy(2779). $he Mo#tled&e 3ompanion to $ranslation St#dies. $aylor [ 8rancis e%-ibrary. Cen#ti, -a1rence (2777). $he $ranslation St#dies Meader. (2nd @dition). Ne1 Eor6+ Mo#tled&e, Micoe#r, ). (277 ). 2n $ranslation. $rans. by @ileen =rennan, -ondon+ Mo#tled&e.
5lvares, F# and ;#7#85# 0idal (*++, , 9$ranslatin&+ / )olitical /ct:, in /lvare?, M. and 0.3. X / Cidal (eds.), Translation, Po"er, Subversion, 3levedon+ 0#ltilin&#al 0atters. =a6er, 0. (1992), 6n Cther 2ords, -ondon+ Mo#tled&e. =assnett, S. (1991), Translation Studies, -ondon+ Mo#tled&e. =ell, M. (1991), Translation and Translating, -ondon+ -on&man. =ennett, 0. J. (199> , To"ards Ethnorelativism: 5 Mevelopmental ;odel of 6ntercultural Sensitivity in#0. M. )ai&e (ed.) Education for the 6ntercultural Experience , Earmo#th, 0aine+ 4nterc#lt#ral )ress, pp. 22%7>. =l#m%O#l6a, Sh. (19B ), 9Shifts of 3ohesion and 3oherence in $ranslation: , in 6nterlingual and 6ntercultural 7ommunication: Miscourse and 7ognition in Translation and Second 3anguage 5c%uisition Studies, S. =l#m%O#l6a and J. Ho#se (eds.) $jbin&en+ A#nter Narr, pp. 17%>D. =ro1n, A. and A. E#le (19B>), Miscourse 5nalysis, 3ambrid&e+ 3ambrid&e Sniversity )ress. 3roitor#, @. (199 ), 6nterpretation and Translation, Aalati+ @dit#ra )orto%8ranco. 3roitor#, @. (277 ), 9@(plicitation in $ranslation:, in the vol. of the 4nternational 3onference 4ello"ship of 7ultural Fings, =#c#resti, @dit#ra Kidactick si )eda&o&ick, M. /., pp. 1! %1DD. 3roitor#, @. and /. 0. K#mitrasc# (277 ), 9 ;odulation 8 / $ranslation Strate&y:, in vol. Translation Studies: Fetrospective and Prospective 0ie"s , Aalati, @dit#ra 8#ndatiei Sniversitare :K#nkrea de Jos:, pp. 2!%>1. 3roitor#, @. and /. 0. K#mitrasc# (forthcomin&), The ;eta-;odel in Translation# Kodds, J. (199!), 5spects of 3iterary Text 5nalysis and Translation 7riticism , Sdine+ 3ampanotto @ditore. Aar?one, A. (277>), Momain Specific English and 3anguage ;ediation in Professional and 6nstitutional Settings, 0ilano+ /rcipela&o @di?ioni. Aent?eler, @. (2771), 7ontemporary Translation Theories, 3levedon+ 0#ltilin&#al 0atters. Halliday, 0./.O. (2771), To"ards a theory of good translation , in /. Moth6e&el and J. -afflin&G, pp. 1>%19. Hofstede, A. (1991), 7ultures and Crgani$ations. Soft"are of the mind, -ondon+ 0cAra1%Hill. Holman, 0. and J. =oase%=eier (1999), 6ntroduction# 2riting, Fe"riting and Translation Through 7onstraint to 7reativity, in J. =oase%=eier and 0. Holman (eds.), The Practices of 3iterary Translation 7onstraints and 7reativity, S.O+ St. Jerome )#blishin&, pp. 1%19. Holmes, J. (19BB), TranslatedA Papers on 3iterary Translation and Translation Studies , /pproaches to $ranslation St#dies 7, /msterdam+ Modopi. Ho#se, J. (2771), Go" do "e .no" "hen a translation is good K in /. Moth6e&el and J. -afflin& (eds.), Text, Translation and 7omputational Processing, W, Exploring Translation and ;ultilingual Text Production: <eyond 7ontent , =erlin. Ne1 Eor6+ 0o#ton de Ar#yter, pp. 127% 1 1. Oatan, K. and 8. Straniero Ser&io (2771a), -oo6 Iho"s $al6in&+ $he @thics of @ntertainment in $al6 Sho1 4nterpretin&, in The Translator: The Feturn to Ethics , a )ym (ed.), Special 4ss#e, 2771+2, pp. 21>%2>B. Oatan, K. (2771b), 9Ihen Kifference is not dan&ero#s+ 0odellin& 4nterc#lt#ral 3ompetence for =#siness:, in Textus Y60, A. 3ortese and K. Hymes (eds.), 2, pp. 2B7%>7 . Oatan, K. (277!), Translating 7ultures# 5n 6ntroduction for Translators, 6nterpreters and ;ediators, 0anchester, S.O. and Northampton 0/+ St. Jerome )#blishin&. 0athiessen, 0. 4. 0. (2771), 9$he environments of translation:, in /. Moth6e&el and J. -afflin& (eds.), Text, Translation, 7omputational Processing, W# Exploring Translation and ;ultilingual Text Production: <eyond 7ontent, =erlin. Ne1 Eor6+ 0o#ton de Ar#yter, pp. !1%127. Ne#bert, /. and A.0. Shreve (1992), Translation as Text, Oent, 2hio+ $he Oent State Sniversity )ress.

Ne#st#pny, J.C. (19BD), 9)roblems in /#stralian% Japanese 3ontact Sit#ations:, in J.=. )ride (ed.) 7ross-7ultural Encounters: 7ommunication and ;iss-7ommunication , 0elbo#rne Miver Seine, pp. !!% !. Nida, @#&ene, /. (197 ), 9/ 8rame1or6 for the /nalysis and @val#ation of $heories of $ranslation:, in Translation: 5pplications and Fesearch , M. =rislin (ed.), Ne1 Eor6+ Aardner )ress, pp. !7%92. Ne1mar6, ). (19B1), 5pproaches to Translation, 2(ford+ )er&amon )ress. Ne1mar6, ). (19BB), 5 Textboo. of Translation, Hemel Hempstead+ )rentice Hall. Ne1mar6, ). (199>), Paragraphs on Translation, =ristol+ 0#ltilin&#al 0atters. Nida, @#&ene, /. (2771), 7ontexts in Translating, /msterdam')hiladelphia+ John =en;amins )#blishin& 3ompany. Sperber, K. and K. Iilson, (199D), Felevance, 7ommunication and 7ognition, 2nd ed., 2(ford+ =lac61ell. Stol?e, M. (1992), Hermene#tiches lberset?en, $jbin&en+ Narr. $o#ry, A. (199D), Mescriptive Translation Studies and <eyond, /msterdam')hiladelphia+ John =en;amins. Cen#ti, -. (199D), The TranslatorNs 6nvisibility# 5 Gistory of Translation, -ondon+ Mo#tled&e. Cermeer, H. J. (19B>), 5ufsZt$e $ur Translationsthoerie, Heidelber&.

=a6er, 0ona (1992) 6n Cther 2ords: a 7ourseboo. on Translation, -ondon+ Mo#tled&e. Nida, @#&ene /. (19 !) To"ards a Science of Translating, -eiden+ @. J. =rill. Nida and $aber (19B2) The theory and practice of translation, -eiden+ =rill -eonardi, Canessa (2777) E%uivalence in Translation: <et"een ;yth and Feality, Translation Sournal, (http:((translationIournal#net(Iournal(*-e%uiv#htm 0#nday, Jeremy (2771) 6ntroducing Translation Studies, -ondon+ Mo#tled&e Cen#tti, -a#rence (2777) The Translation Studies Feader, -ondon+ Mo#tled&e =a6er, 0. 1992. 6n Cther 2ords# 3roitor#, @. 1999. Translating 6dioms# 6n <ritish and 5merican Studies# 3roitor#, @. 2779. 6diomatic Expressions "ith and as ;odali$ers, in 6nterstudia, Koller#p, 3. 277 . <asics of Translation Studies# 8ernando, 3. and 8lavell, M. 19B1. Cn 6diom: 7ritical 0i"s and Perspectives# Sniversiry of @(eter..td. in 0. =a6er# 6n other 2ords

Meferences =a6er, 0ona (199>). 3orp#s -in&#istics and $ranslation St#dies. 4mplications and /pplications. 4n 0. =a6er, A.8rancis, [ @.$o&nini%=onell (@ds.), Text and Technology in Gonour of Sohn Sinclair (pp. 2>>%2D7), /msterdam')hiladelphia+ John =en;amins. =a6er, 0ona (199 ). 3orp#s%based translation st#dies+ the challen&es that lie ahead. 4n H. Somers (@d.), Terminology, 3SP and Translation: Studies in language engineering in Gonour of Suan 7# Sager (pp. 17D%1B ), /msterdam')hiladelphia+ John =en;amins.

97

=a6er, 0ona (199B). Foutledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. -ondon'Ne1 Eor6+ Mo#tled&e. =l#m%O#l6a, Shoshana (19B ). Shifts of 3ohesion and 3oherence in $ranslation. 4n 6nterlingual and 6ntercultural 7ommunication# Miscourse and 7ognition in Translation and Second 3anguage 5c%uisition Studies, J. Ho#se and S. =l#m%O#l6a (@ds.), 17%>D, $jbin&en+ A#nter Narr Cerla&. Halliday, 0ichael /.O., [ Hasan, M#.aiya (197 ). 7ohesion in English. -ondon'Ne1 Eor6+ -on&man. Ola#dy, Oin&a (199 ). =ac6 $ranslation as a $ool for Ketectin& @(plicitation Strate&ies in $ranslation. 4n O. Ola#dy, J. -ambert, [ /, Sohcr (@ds.), Translating Studies in Gungary (pp. 99%11!). =#dapest+ Scholastica. 2lohan, 0aeve, [ =a6er, 0ona (2777). Meportin& that in $ranslated @n&lish. @vidence for S#bconscio#s )rocesses of @(plicitationJ 5cross 3anguage and 7ultures, *(2), 1!1%1DB. dveres, -inn (199B). 4n Search of the $hird 3ode. /n 4nvesti&ation of Norms in -iterary $ranslation. ;eta, -W(!), D71%DBB. )cpai, Cilma (277!). @(plicitation. 4n /. 0a#ranen and ). O#;ame6i (@ds.), Translation [niversals, /msterdam')hiladelphia+ John =en;amins )#blishin& Ho#se. Sf&#inot, 3andice (19BB). )ra&matics and the @(plicitation Hypothesis. TTF Traduction, Terminologie, F\daction, *(2), 17 %11!. Shlesin&er, 0iriam (199D). Shifts in 3ohesion in Sim#ltaneo#s 4nterpretin&. The Translator, *(2), 19>%21!. $o#ry, Aideon (199D). Mescriptive Translation Studies and beyond . /msterdam+ John =en;amins. 3orp#s+ Sadovean#, 0ihail (1971). <altagul, =#c#reQti, @d. 0inerva. Sadovean#, 0ihail (19B1). 7reanga de aur 8 The Eolden <ough , ediRie bilin&vU, =#c#reQti, 0inerva )#blishin& Ho#se. Sadovean#, 0ihail (19B>). The Gatchet, =#c#reQti, 0inerva )#blishin& Ho#se.

References =ea#&rande, Mobert de (197B), 4actors in a Theory of Poetic Translation, /ssen+ Can Aorc#m. =erman, /ntoine (199D), 9)o#r #ne criti.#e des trad#ctions+ John Konne, )aris+ Aallimard, in -. Cen#ti (ed.) (2777), The Translation Studies Feader, -ondon and Ne1 Eor6+ Mo#tled&e. Kerrida, Jac.#es (1979), 9-ivin& on =order -ines:, trans. J. H#lbert in Meconstruction and 7riticism, Ne1 Eor6+ 3ontin##m, pp. .td. in -a1rence Cen#ti (ed.) (2777) , The Translation Studies Feader, -ondon and Ne1 Eor6+ Mo#tled&e. @co, Smberto (277>), 0o#se or FatK Translation as )egotiation, -ondon+ )hoeni(. 8airclo#&h, Norman (199D), 7ritical Miscourse 5nalysis# The 7ritical Study of 3anguage , Harlo1+ -on&man. 8ra1ley, Iilliam (19B!), Translation: 3iterary, 3inguistic, and Philosophical Perspectives, Ne1 Eor6+ Sniversity of Kela1are )ress A#t, @rnst %/#&#st (1991), Translation and Felevance, 2(ford+ =lac61ell. A#t, @rnst, /#&#st (2777), Translation and Felevance. 7ognition and 7ontext, 0anchester and =oston+ St. Jerome )#blishin&. Hall, St#art (199 ), 9Iho Needs 4dentityJ: from 7ultural 6dentity, St#art Hall and )a#l d# Aay (eds.), -ondon+ Sa&e, pp. 2>%7 , .td. in 0ihaela 4rimia (ed.) (277>), 7ultural 6dentity <et"een 5nchorage and Embeddedness , =#c#resti, )remier. Hatim, =asil and Jeremy, 0#nday (277 ), Translation, -ondon and Ne1 Eor6+ Mo#tled&e. Hollman, 0ichael and Jean =oase X=eier (1999), 94ntrod#ction+ Iritin&, Me1ritin& and $ranslation thro#&h 3onstraints and 3reativity: in J. =oase X=eier and 0. Hollman (eds.) The Practices of 3iterary Translation# 7onstraints and 7reativity, SO+ St. Jerome )#blishin&, pp. 1%19. 4rimia, 0ihaela (ed.) (277>), 7ultural 6dentity bet"een 5nchorage and Embeddedness, =#c#resti+ )remier.

9B

Ja6obson, Moman (19D9'2777), 92n -in&#istic /spects of $ranslation: in Cn Translation, M. /. =o1er (ed.) Ne1 Eor6+ 2(ford Sniversity )ress, pp. 2>2%2>9. Ooller, Iermer (199D), 9$he 3oncept of @.#ivalence and the 2b;ect of $ranslation St#dies:, in Target 1 (2), 191+222. Nida, @#&ene, /. (19 !), To"ards a Science of Translating, -eiden+ @. J. =rill. Cen#ti, -a1rence (2777), 9$ranslation, comm#nity, #topia: in -. Cen#ti (ed.) The Translation Studies Feader, -ondon+ Mo#tled&e, pp. ! B%!BB.

=alli#, 3. 199 . 98ore1ord: in @. Nida The Sociolinguistics of 6nterlingual 7ommunication, =r#(elles+ -es @ditions d# Ha?ard. =onvillain N. 277>. 3anguage and 7ommunication# The ;eaning of ;essages, Ne1 Jersey+ )rentice Hall. 3ronin, 0. 277>. Translation and Elobali$ation, -ondon and Ne1 Eor6+ Mo#tled&e. mmm Mictionary of the English 3anguage, 2777 fo#rth edition, SS/+ Ho#&hton 0iffin 3ompany. Koller#p, O. 277 . <asics of Translation Studies, 4aQi+ 4nstit#t#l @#ropean. @co, S. 277>. ;ouse or FatK Translation as )egotiation, -ondon+ )hoeni(. Holliday, /., 0. Hyde and J. O#llman 277 . 6ntercultural 7ommunication, -ondon and Ne1 Eor6+ Mo#tled&e. Hymes, K. 197!. 4oundations of Sociolinguistics, )hiladelphia+ Sniversity of )ennsylvania )ress. Oatan, K., 277!. Translating 7ultures# 5n 6ntroduction for Translators, 6nterpreters and ;ediators, 0anchester, SO and Northampton 0/+ St. Jerome )#blishin&. -abov, I. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns, )hiladelphia+ Sniversity of )ennsylvania )ress. -eech A. 19B>. Pragmatics, 3ambrid&e+ 3S). 0ilroy, -. and J. 0ilroy 197B. <3han&e and variation in an #rban vernac#lar" in Sociolinguistic Pattern in <ritish English , ). $r#d&ill, (ed.), -ondon+ @d1ard /rnold, pp 19%> . 0ilroy, -. and J. 0ilroy 1992. 9Social net1or6 and social class+ $o1ards an inte&rated sociolin&#istic model: in 3anguage and Society V*+ 1%2 , .td. in =onvillain 277>+ >. Nida, @. 19 !. To"ards a Science of Translating, -eiden+ @. J. =rill. Nida, @. 199 . The Sociolinguistics of 6nterlingual 7ommunication, =r#(elles+ -es @ditions d# Ha?ard. Corp%s+ 3rean&U, 4. 199 . 5mintiri din copil:rie, ediRie bilin&vU, trad#cere de /na 3artian# Qi M.3. Johnston, Sibi#, @dit#ra SniversitURii 9-#cian =la&a:, Societatea /cademicU /n&lofonU din Mom^nia. BIBLIO;RAP7ICAL REFERENCES =a6er, 0., 6n Cther 2ords# 5 7ourseboo. Cn Translation, Mo#tled&e, -ondon and Ne1 Eor6, 1992. =antaQ, /., -eviRchi, -., Mic?ionar engle$-rom>n, @dit#ra $eora, =#c#reQti. =antaQ, /., Nedelc#, 3., 0#rar, 4., =rat#, /., Mic?ionar rom>n-engle$, @dit#ra $eora, =#c#reQti, 2777. =assnett, S., Translation Studies, Mo#tled&e, -ondon and Ne1 Eor6, 1992. =reban, C., Mic?ionarul limbii rom>ne moderne, @dit#ra htiinRificU Qi @nciclopedicU, =#c#reQti, 19B7. 3atford, J.3., 5 3inguistic Theory of Translation, 2(ford Sniversity )ress, -ondon, 19 9. 3roitor#, @., 6nterpretation and Translation, )orto%8ranco, AalaRi, 199 . Hatim, =. and 0ason, 4., Miscourse and the Translator, -on&man, -ondon and Ne1 Eor6, 1992. Ja6obsen, /.-., .#oted after S. =assnett%0cA#ire, 1991. Ja6obson, M., Cn Translation, 3ambrid&e, 0ass.+ Harvard Sniv. )ress, 19D9. Nida, @. 7ontexts in Translating, John =en;amins )#blishin& 3ompany, /msterdam' )hiladelphia, 2771. Meiss, O. and Cermeer, H., Erundlegung einer 5llgemeinen Translationstheorie, Niemeyer, $#bin&en, .#oted after /.-.Ja6obsen (19B>), 19B!.

99

Cinay J.%)., Karbelnet, J., 7omparative Stylistcs of 4rench and English + 5 ;ethodology for Translation, translated and edited by J#an 3. Sa&er and 0.J.Hamel, John =en;amins )#blishin& 3ompany, /msterdam, 199D. CORPUS /#sten, J., Pride and PreIudice, )en&#in 3lassics, -ondon, 199>. /#sten, J., ;@ndrie Bi preIudecat:, trad. /l. )etrea, @d. pentr# literat#rU, =#c#reQti, 19 B. /#sten, J., ;@ndrie Bi preIudecat:, trad. /. /lmU&ean#, @d. @minesc#, =#c#reQti, 1977. =rnnte, 3h., Sane Eyre, )en&#in 3lassics, -ondon, 199 . =rnnte, 3h., Sane Eyre, trad. ).=. 0arian, K. 0a?il#, @d. 0inerva, =#c#reQti, 1977. =rnnte, 3h., Sane Eyre, trad. ). 0arian, Societatea Komaco S.M.-., =#c#reQti, 199 . 3ollins, I., The 2oman in 2hite, )en&#in 3lassics, -ondon, 19BB. 3onrad, J., Typhoon, )en&#in 3lassics, -ondon, 19B . 3roitor#, @., )opesc#, 8., Kima, A., 7ulegere de texte pentru traducere, vol. 4, @d. @vri6ao, =rUila, 199 . 3roitor#, @., )opesc#, 8., Kima, A., English Through Translations, @dit#ra 8#ndaRiei Sniversitare pK#nUrea de Jos:, AalaRi, 277!. James, H., The 3andscape Painter and Cther Tales# */,--*/]-, )en&#in =oo6s -td., -ondon, 1991. James, H., The 5spern Papers, )en&#in =oo6s -td., -ondon, 199!. James, H., 7e Btia ;aisie, trad. Ke ht. Stoenesc#, @d. Snivers, =#c#reQti, 197. 2ebsterNs Encyclopedic [nabridged Mictionary of the English 3anguage , Aramercy =oo6s, Ne1 Eor6, 199 . Iilde, 2., Portretul lui Morian Erey, trad. Ke K. 0a?il#, @d. pentr# literat#rU, =#c#reQti, 19 7. Iilde, 2., The Picture of Morian Erey, )en&#in 3lassics, -ondon, 19BD.

177